DOCSLIB.ORG

Ministerial Reshuffle Speculation Briefing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ministerial Reshuffle Speculation Briefing Ministerial Reshuffle Speculation Briefing August 2012 DeHavilland Political Research DeHavilland Parliamentary Affairs Table of Contents Introduction Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Cabinet Office Conservative Party Chairman Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture, Media and Sport Ministry of Defence Department for Education Department of Energy and Climate Change Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Foreign and Commonwealth Office Department of Health Home Office Department for International Development Ministry of Justice Northern Ireland Office Office of the Leader of the House of Commons / Lords Scotland Office Department for Transport HM Treasury Wales Office The Whips’ Office Department for Work and Pensions P a g e | 1 Introduction Speculation surrounding a ministerial reshuffle has grown in recent weeks, with commentators increasingly pointing to a September shake-up. Some commentators are anticipating a reshuffle as early as the first week of September, to coincide with the return of the Commons from summer recess, but before party conference season begins. The Prime Minister will be restricted in any attempt to revitalise the Cabinet because of several considerations. First, he may seek to strike a balance between punishing disloyalty – for example, by sacking the three Cabinet Ministers who reportedly called for the Health and Social Care Bill to be dropped – and rewarding loyalty, perhaps by promoting backbenchers who have voted against their conscience on certain issues. Mr Cameron’s approach will also be dictated by a need to placate the increasingly restive 2010 Conservative intake by promoting some of its more prominent MPs. Other commentators have suggested that it is the 2005 intake of MPs that will benefit most from the reshuffle. If either cohort is to benefit, this may even involve promoting some of those who rebelled by voting for the backbench motion on an EU referendum last October and those who voted against the progression of the Government’s House of Lords Reform Bill to second reading in July. The benefits of bringing rebels onto the Government payroll are twofold. Firstly, it could appease those who share the rebels’ views, and secondly, it could effectively silence rebellious backbench voices. Indeed, the idea of an amnesty for former rebels has been floated by various commentators in recent weeks, including Tim Montgomerie of the influential ConservativeHome grassroots website and Brendan Carlin of the Daily Mail. Other restrictions are self-imposed. In Opposition, Mr Cameron stated his ‘aspiration’ to give a third of Government jobs to women by the end of his first term. Presently, just 12 of 85 Conservatives Ministers, Whips and Lords spokespeople are women – a paltry 14 per cent. For Mr Cameron to reach the target of a third in a single reshuffle, he would need to replace 16 men with women. It is therefore unlikely that his aspiration will be met on this occasion – especially with female Cabinet Ministers among those tipped to lose their jobs – but a drive for greater representation of women in his Government will surely guide his hand. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has fewer Ministers to shuffle and a smaller parliamentary party to draw from, but he may also be keen to promote women given that there is currently not a single female Lib Dem in the Cabinet. The ratio of Conservative to Liberal Democrat Ministers, despite Tory grumbles that the size of the Lib Dem parliamentary party does not justify their current number Government jobs, is likely to remain constant. Indeed, as the Coalition Agreement, the founding text of the Government, states: “No Liberal Democrat Minister or Whip may be removed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister without full consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister.” P a g e | 2 Furthermore, the Deputy Prime Minister retains a formal consultative and nominating role in all ministerial appointments. In theory, any single ministerial move requires the consent of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. In this speculation document we have sought to collate all the rumours surrounding the reshuffle into one place. By their very nature these are unreliable and subject to constant rebuttal and revision. Indeed, some may have even been conjured up out of thin air by mischievous political journalists. However, some rumours have persisted and by reviewing these we are able to provide an interesting overview of the way the Government could potentially look for the second half of this Parliament. Back to contents P a g e | 3 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Business Writing for the Daily Telegraph in July, Sue Cameron noted “speculation...about Vince Cable...who may step down with a view to becoming leader of the Lib Dems in the Commons”. The logic behind Cable relinquishing his current position, Ms Cameron writes, would be to enable him to form a deal with a Labour Party that will “never do a deal with Mr Clegg” after the 2015 general election. Were he to step down, Dr Cable would prefer Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Danny Alexander, to replace him as Business Secretary, Cameron writes. David Laws is pointed to as the most likely replacement for Danny Alexander, should he move to BIS. Mr Alexander, of course, replaced Mr Laws just 17 days into the Coalition Government, after resigning when disclosure of his expenses claims revealed that he had claimed more than £40,000 on his expenses in the form of second home costs, whilst renting rooms at properties owned by his partner. Patrick Hennessy of the Daily Telegraph noted in March that: “senior Tories are pressing for BIS... to be led by a Conservative. This would, they argue, prevent the Coalition effectively running two differing economic strategies”. Former Conservative MP Paul Goodman wrote in the Daily Telegraph in August that “the consensus of senior Conservatives and young Turks alike is that replacing Dr Cable with a more business-friendly figure would boost supply-side change, rally business confidence and signal to voters that the Government is going for growth”. However, as Goodman notes, such a move would require the Prime Minister to either replace Dr Cable with another Liberal Democrat, perhaps David Laws who is perceived by many Conservatives as fully signed up to the Government’s economic strategy, or to effectively swap BIS for another important department, such as the Home Office. The less excitable Simon Walters and Glen Owen of the Daily Mail wrote in August that Dr Cable is “likely to stay put”, along with the other three Lib Dem Cabinet Ministers. That same month, Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome labelled Decentralisation and Cities Minister Greg Clark (who sits in both BIS and the Department for Communities and Local Government) as one of the “junior ministers who've performed well in their briefs and are knocking at the door of the Cabinet” in August. Mr Clark was tipped in July by James Chapman of the Daily Mail to take over at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should Caroline Spelman lose her job. Minister for Trade and Investment, Lord Green, came under sustained pressure in July following revelations of money laundering at HSBC during his tenure as the bank’s chief executive and chairman. Despite this, Leader of the House of Lords Lord Strathclyde rejected calls for his resignation on the grounds that “no minister needs to be accountable to parliament for his previous career, only for what they are doing as ministers”. However, writing in March, Philip Aldrick of the Daily Telegraph suggested that Lord Green is “thought to be favoured by the Chancellor” for the role of Governor of the Bank of England. A decision on Sir Mervyn King’s P a g e | 4 replacement is “expected by the end of the year”, so if Lord Green is in the running, a September reshuffle would be an ideal time for him to step down from his current Ministerial role. Higher and Further Education Ephraim Hardcastle of the Daily Mail reported in February that the Education Secretary Michael Gove, angered by the appointment of Professor Les Ebdon as the director of the Office for Fair Access by Vince Cable, had indicated his intention to bring the responsibility for higher education to the DfE as part of a reshuffle. Were Mr Gove to get his way, the move would cost David Willetts his position as Universities and Science Minister at BIS, Hardcastle writes. Indeed, Mr Gove told a meeting of the Education Select Committee in January 2012 that “I think it was wrong to split universities and science away from the Department for Education, but one must not make the best the enemy of the good, and at the moment we have a superb team of Ministers in BIS, who are doing a brilliant job, so I have enough to get on with at the moment.” Writing in August, Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome, stated that if the Prime Minister does opt for a “long knives reshuffle so that he can freshen his team with a large number of new faces...Willetts could also be vulnerable”. Another possibility is that Mr Willetts, along with his portfolio of responsibilities, would simply be transferred to the DfE, giving Mr Gove greater control over the Government’s higher education policy. Alternatively, Mr Willetts could sit in a cross-department position, akin to John Hayes (Skills and Lifelong Learning Minister, who sits in both the Department for Education and BIS). However, any mention of Mr Hayes has been largely absent from reshuffle speculation. This is perhaps unsurprising given that Mr Hayes performed the same role in opposition for the entirety of David Cameron’s time as Leader of the Opposition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 13273 PSA Conf Programme 2011 PRINT
    Transforming Politics: New Synergies 61st Annual International Conference 18 – 21 April 2011 Novotel London West, London, UK PSA 61st Annual International Conference London, 18 –21 April 2011 www.psa.ac.uk/2011 A Word of Welcome Dear Conference delegate You are extremely welcome to this 61st Conference of the Political Studies Association, held in the UK capital. The recently refurbished Hammersmith Novotel hotel offers high quality conference facilities all under one roof. We are expecting well over 500 delegates, representing over 50 different countries. There are more than 190 panels, as well as the workshops on Monday, building on last year’s innovation, and as a new addition, dedicated posters sessions. There are also three receptions. The Conference theme is ‘Transforming Politics: New Synergies’. Keynote speakers include Professor Carole Pateman, President of APSA, revisiting the concept of participatory democracy and Professor Iain McLean giving the Government and Opposition-sponsored Leonard Schapiro lecture on the subject of coalition and minority government. On Wednesday, our after-dinner speaker is Professor Tony Wright, (UCL and Birkbeck College) former MP and Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee. Amongst other highlights, Professor Vicente Palermo will discuss Anglo-Argentine relations and John Denham MP will talk on ‘English questions’ and the Labour Party’ and Sir Michael Aaronson, former Director General of Save the Children, will be drawing on his experience working in crisis situations to reflect on whether we had a choice in Libya today. Despite the worsening economic and policy environment, this has been a particularly active and successful year for the Association. Overall membership figures, including those for the new Teachers’ Section, continue to rise.
    [Show full text]
  • FAA Order 8020.11 C
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIAl-ION ADMINISTRATION National Policy Effective Date: 02/02/2010 SUBJ: Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting This order prescribes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedures and responsibilities for aircraft accident and incident notification, investigation, and reporting. It provides direction and guidance to aviation safety inspectors when they are called upon to perform accident investigation. It also explains the responsibilities of the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board when conducting investigations. The order is also used as a training guide for teaching accident investigation courses at the National Aircraft Accident Investigation School, Transportation Safety Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. All concerned personnel must familiarize themselves with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities and exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not covered by the order. /J. *dolph Babbitt Distribution: Electronic Only Initiated By: AAI-100 02/02/2010 8020.11C Table of Contents Chapter 1. General Information Pages 1. Purpose of This Order 1-1 2. Audience 1-1 3. Where Can I Find This Order 1-1 4. What This Order Cancels 1-1 5. Explanation of Changes 1-1 6. Definitions 1-1 7. Forms and Reports 1-7 8. Authority To Change This Order 1-7 9. FAA Responsibilities in Aircraft Accident Investigations 1-7 10. Responsibilities of Regional Divisions and Aircraft Certification Directorates in Aircraft Accident Investigations 1-9 11. FAA and NTSB Accident and Incident Investigation Agreements 1-9 12. Post-Accident or Incident Drug Testing 1-10 13. FAA Investigator-In-Charge (IIC) 1-10 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Solidity Or Wind?": What's on the Menu in the Bill of Rights Debate?
    Francesca Klug "Solidity or wind?": what's on the menu in the bill of rights debate? Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Klug, Francesca (2009) "Solidity or wind?": what's on the menu in the bill of rights debate? Political Quarterly, 80 (3). pp. 420-426. ISSN 0032-3179 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.01997.x © 2009 The Author © The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25118/ Available in LSE Research Online: April 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. “Solidity or Wind?” What’s on the menu in the bill of rights debate? [This article was written before the government published the Green Paper Rights and Responsibilities: developing our constitutional framework in March 2009 and provides a political context to it.] Many of us in the UK will have felt a twinge of envy when Barack Obama, in his Inaugural speech, affirmed “the ideals of our forbears” and the need to stay “true to our founding documents.” These American forbears had, of course, fought ‘our’ British forbears to gain their freedom and, with no written constitution, we have precious few founding documents to turn to.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost of the Cops
    Policy Exchange Police staffing and resources are at unprecedented levels. On any basis England and Wales have never been more policed, and police forces have never been so rich in technology or staff support. But budget reduc)ons for the police in England and Wales Cost of the Cops over the next four years and the need for improved produc)vity will focus a*en)on on the costs of policing, the pay and condi)ons of staff and the way in which those resources are deployed. Manpower and deployment in policing Edward Boyd, Rory Geoghegan and Blair Gibbs Eighty per cent of police funding is spent on personnel, so the impera)ve to ensure Cost of the Cops efficient staffing arrangements has never been greater. Unfortunately the debate about police funding con)nues to be played out in line with a damaging two decade-long obsession with officer numbers, and a lack of understanding about how police manpower is presently deployed. Cost of the Cops examines the cost base of policing over the period 2001-2010 and explores whether current resources of staff and uniformed officers are being used effec)vely. This report examines in detail manpower and deployment issues affec)ng the police – including civilianisa)on, deployment and frontline visibility. This report finds that low rates of civilianisa)on s)ll persist in the police, which prevents the right people from being in the right jobs, resul)ng in inefficiency and a poorer service to the public as warranted officers perform civilian roles far away from the frontline.
    [Show full text]
  • FDN-274688 Disclosure
    FDN-274688 Disclosure MP Total Adam Afriyie 5 Adam Holloway 4 Adrian Bailey 7 Alan Campbell 3 Alan Duncan 2 Alan Haselhurst 5 Alan Johnson 5 Alan Meale 2 Alan Whitehead 1 Alasdair McDonnell 1 Albert Owen 5 Alberto Costa 7 Alec Shelbrooke 3 Alex Chalk 6 Alex Cunningham 1 Alex Salmond 2 Alison McGovern 2 Alison Thewliss 1 Alistair Burt 6 Alistair Carmichael 1 Alok Sharma 4 Alun Cairns 3 Amanda Solloway 1 Amber Rudd 10 Andrea Jenkyns 9 Andrea Leadsom 3 Andrew Bingham 6 Andrew Bridgen 1 Andrew Griffiths 4 Andrew Gwynne 2 Andrew Jones 1 Andrew Mitchell 9 Andrew Murrison 4 Andrew Percy 4 Andrew Rosindell 4 Andrew Selous 10 Andrew Smith 5 Andrew Stephenson 4 Andrew Turner 3 Andrew Tyrie 8 Andy Burnham 1 Andy McDonald 2 Andy Slaughter 8 FDN-274688 Disclosure Angela Crawley 3 Angela Eagle 3 Angela Rayner 7 Angela Smith 3 Angela Watkinson 1 Angus MacNeil 1 Ann Clwyd 3 Ann Coffey 5 Anna Soubry 1 Anna Turley 6 Anne Main 4 Anne McLaughlin 3 Anne Milton 4 Anne-Marie Morris 1 Anne-Marie Trevelyan 3 Antoinette Sandbach 1 Barry Gardiner 9 Barry Sheerman 3 Ben Bradshaw 6 Ben Gummer 3 Ben Howlett 2 Ben Wallace 8 Bernard Jenkin 45 Bill Wiggin 4 Bob Blackman 3 Bob Stewart 4 Boris Johnson 5 Brandon Lewis 1 Brendan O'Hara 5 Bridget Phillipson 2 Byron Davies 1 Callum McCaig 6 Calum Kerr 3 Carol Monaghan 6 Caroline Ansell 4 Caroline Dinenage 4 Caroline Flint 2 Caroline Johnson 4 Caroline Lucas 7 Caroline Nokes 2 Caroline Spelman 3 Carolyn Harris 3 Cat Smith 4 Catherine McKinnell 1 FDN-274688 Disclosure Catherine West 7 Charles Walker 8 Charlie Elphicke 7 Charlotte
    [Show full text]
  • Liver Disease
    LIVER DISEASE: TO da Y ’ S COMP la C E NCY , TOMO rr OW ’ S C A T as T R OPH E The All-Party Parliamentary Hepatology Group (APPHG) Inquiry into Improving Outcomes in Liver Disease March 2014 About the All-Party Parliamentary Hepatology Group (APPHG) The APPHG is a group of cross-party MPs and Peers with an interest in liver disease. Its purpose is “to promote discussion of hepatology, including viral hepatitis and related public health issues, and to raise matters of concern with, and make representations to, government and other policy makers”. The Group is co-chaired by David Amess MP and Baroness Masham of Ilton. Jason McCartney MP and Virendra Sharma MP are vice-chairs of the group. The Hepatitis C Trust provides secretariat support to the group, helping to arrange meetings and to conduct research and write reports. The APPGH Inquiry Committee The APPHG Inquiry into Improving Outcomes from Liver Disease was chaired by David Amess MP, supported by Baroness Masham and the chief executives of two patient organisations, Charles Gore of The Hepatitis C Trust and Andrew Langford of the British Liver Trust. The analysis of the evidence and writing of the report was supported by Jane Cox of The Hepatitis C Trust. Acknowledgements The APPHG would like to thank all of the organisations and individuals who submitted written evidence to this Inquiry, or who took part in the oral evidence sessions. We are delighted with the depth and breadth of evidence submitted and for the participation of such a wide variety of key organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservative Agenda for Constitutional Reform
    UCL DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE The Constitution Unit Department of Political Science UniversityThe Constitution College London Unit 29–30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU phone: 020 7679 4977 fax: 020 7679 4978 The Conservative email: [email protected] www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit A genda for Constitutional The Constitution Unit at UCL is the UK’s foremost independent research body on constitutional change. It is part of the UCL School of Public Policy. THE CONSERVATIVE Robert Hazell founded the Constitution Unit in 1995 to do detailed research and planning on constitutional reform in the UK. The Unit has done work on every aspect AGENDA of the UK’s constitutional reform programme: devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, reform of the House of Lords, electoral reform, R parliamentary reform, the new Supreme Court, the conduct of referendums, freedom eform Prof FOR CONSTITUTIONAL of information, the Human Rights Act. The Unit is the only body in the UK to cover the whole of the constitutional reform agenda. REFORM The Unit conducts academic research on current or future policy issues, often in collaboration with other universities and partners from overseas. We organise regular R programmes of seminars and conferences. We do consultancy work for government obert and other public bodies. We act as special advisers to government departments and H parliamentary committees. We work closely with government, parliament and the azell judiciary. All our work has a sharply practical focus, is concise and clearly written, timely and relevant to policy makers and practitioners. The Unit has always been multi disciplinary, with academic researchers drawn mainly from politics and law.
    [Show full text]
  • If the Cap Doesn't Fit, Give It Up, George
    If the cap doesn’t fit, give it up, George! Exploring the evidence and theory behind the Chancellor’s 2012 Budget 2012 proposal for an income tax relief cap to include charitable donations 21st May 2012 Dr Catherine Walker Head of STEAM Directory of Social Change 24 Stephenson Way London NW1 2DP ___________________________________________________________________________________________ © 2011 Directory of Social Change Summary In the Budget 2012 the Chancellor casually announced, with no forewarning, a cap on income tax reliefs to include charitable giving schemes. A mad scramble for hard data on the potential effects of this ensued with little agreement on figures from either side. This paper summarises the issues involved and proposes some new figures based on our own and others calculations. We estimate that the proposed income tax relief cap could save HM Treasury £100 million in tax on charitable gifts, while charities could lose out by £500-£600 million in donations. And this may be a very conservative estimate, because donors don’t just react to the price of giving, they are also influenced by the culture within which they are giving. We argue that the real effect could be multiplied many times due to the negative messages this cap is giving out about giving. It is this psychological effect of the proposed cap which is the hardest to quantify, yet potentially the most damaging, and the hardest to rectify if this situation goes on for much longer. Background It’s been an incredible couple of months for charity tax experts and amateur enthusiasts. Rather like trainspotting becoming headline news.
    [Show full text]
  • Ofcom: the Effectiveness of Converged Regulation
    House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts Ofcom: the effectiveness of converged regulation Twentieth Report of Session 2010-11 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 1 February 2011 HC 688 Published on 10 February 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £13.50 The Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No 148). Current membership Rt Hon Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking) (Chair) Mr Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk) Mr Stephen Barclay (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire) Dr Stella Creasy (Labour/Cooperative, Walthamstow) Jackie Doyle-Price (Conservative, Thurrock) Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney) Matthew Hancock (Conservative, West Suffolk) Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative, Daventry) Joseph Johnson (Conservative, Orpington) Rt Hon Mrs Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling) Mr Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby) Nick Smith (Labour, Blaenau Gwent) Ian Swales (Liberal Democrats, Redcar) James Wharton (Conservative, Stockton South) The following member was also a member of the committee during the parliament: Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk) Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 148. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Thecoalition
    The Coalition Voters, Parties and Institutions Welcome to this interactive pdf version of The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Please note that in order to view this pdf as intended and to take full advantage of the interactive functions, we strongly recommend you open this document in Adobe Acrobat. Adobe Acrobat Reader is free to download and you can do so from the Adobe website (click to open webpage). Navigation • Each page includes a navigation bar with buttons to view the previous and next pages, along with a button to return to the contents page at any time • You can click on any of the titles on the contents page to take you directly to each article Figures • To examine any of the figures in more detail, you can click on the + button beside each figure to open a magnified view. You can also click on the diagram itself. To return to the full page view, click on the - button Weblinks and email addresses • All web links and email addresses are live links - you can click on them to open a website or new email <>contents The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Edited by: Hussein Kassim Charles Clarke Catherine Haddon <>contents Published 2012 Commissioned by School of Political, Social and International Studies University of East Anglia Norwich Design by Woolf Designs (www.woolfdesigns.co.uk) <>contents Introduction 03 The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Introduction The formation of the Conservative-Liberal In his opening paper, Bob Worcester discusses Democratic administration in May 2010 was a public opinion and support for the parties in major political event.
    [Show full text]
  • (Title of the Thesis)*
    TENDENCIA THATCHERITIS OR ENGLISHNESS REMADE The Fictions of Julian Barnes, Hanif Kureishi and Pat Barker by Heather Ann Joyce A thesis submitted to the Department of English In conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen‘s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (July, 2011) Copyright © Heather Ann Joyce, 2011 Abstract Julian Barnes, Pat Barker, and Hanif Kureishi are all canonical authors whose fictions are widely believed to reflect the cultural and political state of a nation that is post-war, post-imperial and post-modern. While much has been written on how Barker‘s and Kureishi‘s early works in particular respond to and intervene in the presiding political narrative of the 1980s – Thatcherism – treatment of how revenants of Thatcherism have shaped these writers‘ works from 1990 on has remained cursory. Thatcherism is more than an obvious historical reference point for Barker, Barnes, and Kureishi; their works demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of how Thatcher‘s reworkings of the repertoires of Englishness – a representational as well as political and cultural endeavour – persist beyond her time in office. Barnes, Barker, and Kureishi seem to have reached the same conclusion as political and cultural critics: Thatcher and Thatcherism have remade not only the contemporary political and cultural landscapes but also the electorate and consequently the English themselves. Tony Blair‘s conception of the New Britain proved less than satisfactory because contemporary repertoires of Englishness repeat and rework historical and not incidentally imperial formulations of England and Englishness rather than envision civic and populist formulations of renewal. Barnes‘s England, England and Arthur & George confront the discourse of inevitability that has come to be attached to contemporary formulations of both political and cultural Englishness – both in terms of its predictable demise and its belated celebration.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's European Question and an In/Out Referendum
    To be or not to be in Europe: is that the question? Britain’s European question and an in/out referendum TIM OLIVER* ‘It is time to settle this European question in British politics.’ David Cameron, 23 January 2013.1 Britain’s European question It came as no surprise to those who follow the issue of the European Union in British politics that David Cameron’s January 2013 speech on Europe excited a great deal of comment. The EU is among the most divisive issues in British politics. Cameron himself drew on this to justify his committing the Conservative Party, should it win the general election in 2015, to seek a renegotiated position for the UK within the EU which would then be put to the British people in an in/out referendum. Growing public frustrations at UK–EU relations were, he argued, the result of both a longstanding failure to consult the British people about their country’s place in the EU, and a changing EU that was undermining the current relationship between Britain and the Union. As a result, he argued, ‘the democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer-thin’. Cameron’s speech was met with both criticism and praise from Eurosceptics and pro-Europeans alike.2 In a speech at Chatham House backing Cameron’s plan, the former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major best captured some of the hopes for a referendum: ‘The relationship with Europe has poisoned British politics for too long, distracted parliament from other issues and come close to destroying the Conservative Party.
    [Show full text]