Braverman out, Cameron in (again): Sunak’s reshuffle explained
(This article may be subject to updates as new announcements come from Downing Street)
Today (Monday 13th November), Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a cabinet reshuffle.
This came with hopes from No.10 to find cabinet unity and revive the government ahead of the 2024 General Election.
The headline-grabbing announcement was the return of David Cameron, who was the Conservative Prime Minister between 2010 and 2016, taking up the role of Foreign Secretary.
James Cleverly, who was the previous Foreign Secretary, has replaced Suella Braverman as Home Secretary. Braverman being sacked had been predicted by many commentators and analysts, following controversial comments made in an article for The Times last Wednesday (8th November).
In the article, Braverman characterised Israel-supporting protestors as holding “dignified vigils”, comparing this to “the pro-Palestinian movement that has mobilised tens of thousands of angry demonstrators.”. She was criticised for using polarising language and spreading division.
Braverman’s advocacy for the police using “even-handedness” was widely received as veiled language promoting a police crackdown on Palestine-supporting protestors.
She described a “left-wing bias” in how protestors are treated by police. This is despite government and police harshening their response to all protest in the 2023 Public Order Act 2023 and 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. Some consider these restrictions of protest freedoms as a direct response to protest movements that are characterised as “left-wing”, for instance environmentalist campaign group Just Stop Oil.
No.10 had asked Braverman to make changes, but she had gone ahead with her initial comments.
Her replacement by James Cleverly is unlikely to mark a big ideological shift in the role. Cleverly’s voting record, accessible via website theyworkforyou.com, reflects his similar views as part of the Conservative Right: voting for lowered corporation tax, reduction in welfare benefit spending, and crucially, stricter immigration enforcement.
However, he may present a more muted media presence than Braverman who repeatedly attracted intense media attention for her controversial statements. This included her calling homelessness a “lifestyle choice” on 4th November, which attracted widespread criticism including from homelessness charity Shelter: “Let’s be very clear: Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice”.
There are whispers around Westminster that these comments were the real reason Sunak decided Braverman had to go.
The reintroduction of David Cameron to frontline politics marked the biggest surprise of the day. He will not be publicly elected as Sunak will endow him with a peerage in the House of Lords. It is not conventional for senior ministers to come from the Lords.
Concerns have been raised that Cameron would not have to answer questions asked of him because he sits in the House of Lords not the House of Commons. In response, Labour MP Chris Bryant called the appointment a “disgrace”. Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts shared this sentiment, accusing the government of neglecting “democratic accountability”.
Before 2009 there was no mechanism that meant Lords who were secretaries of state were compelled to answer questions. This changed with the introduction of oral questions to Lords if the issue was under their ministerial brief, but this rule is only valid if the question comes from within the Lords itself.
Lords who are secretaries of state are not required by law to appear in front of select committees. However, in practice most attend to avoid criticism a lack of transparency and opportunity for scrutiny.
Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle told The Independent he was waiting for reassurance from Sunak’s team as to how Cameron would be kept accountable in office.
As well as shock, some voiced optimism and relief in response to Cameron’s instalment. His familiarity and high-profile in Britain and globally may provide some stability, breaking through the recent noise and chaos of Conservative Party politics. Speaking to The Independent Former Conservative Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind welcomed the news: “It’s an inspired choice. Because he was PM for six years, deeply involved in foreign policy, he stands from a much-better informed position,”
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte echoed these congratulations, posting on X (formerly known as Twitter): “Welcome back David Cameron”.
In a post on social media, Labour insinuated the appointment of Cameron refuted his claims to be a “change” candidate. The opposition party labelled him “Out of Touch. Out of Ideas. Out of his Depth.”.
Comprehensive records of Cameron’s voting history may indicate how he will approach the role.
He was generally supportive of military intervention in other countries. Cameron was aware of the deployment of RAF planes to Syria despite the Commons’ express disapproval of any military intervention. He voted in favour of the UN’s use of force in Libya. Whilst this succeeded in the removal of dictator Muammar Gaddafi, foreign intervention resulting in regime change has been criticised for leaving behind a power vacuum of instability.
His Remain position in the 2016 EU referendum signals a more open attitude towards the EU. He is highly unlikely to continue Braverman’s agenda of removing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights. However he has to contend with a wider cabinet and party that has been purged of more moderate, EU-supportive MPs. Stances on the EU are likely to cause tension within Sunak’s cabinet.
His attitudes towards Israel-Palestine have previously been sympathetic to Palestinians. In 2010 he said, “Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp”.
However in 2014 there was tension in his cabinet with Liberal Democrat members of the coalition government. Cameron, and then-Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond, did not immediately suspend weapons exports to Israel. This was despite evidence they were being used by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in offensives in Gaza with severe humanitarian consequences which included the killing of civilians.
Therefore, Cameron’s record on the Israel-Palestine conflict does not immediately suggest how he will act in the current war.
Other changes:
Victoria Atkins has replaced Steve Barclay as Health Secretary. Atkins has secured her first ministerial position and must now face the challenges of an NHS frequently described as nearing, or beyond, ‘breaking point’.
Barclay has replaced Thérèse Coffey, the Environment Secretary, who resigned. Commentators speculated that Coffey resigned in expectation that Sunak would sack her. She faced strong criticism from environmentalists who said the government was diluting its climate pledges. The frequent release of sewage into UK waterways has been grabbed onto by critics as a symbol of Conservative failings.
The departure of Housing Minister Rachel Maclean, replaced by Lee Rowley, has raised concerns over the implication of high levels of churn in cabinet positions. Maclean was the 15th Housing Minister in 13 1/2 years. Housing Ministers fast departure from office makes a coherent strategy for the pressing housing crisis difficult to achieve. Tim Durrant, the director of the think-tank Institute for Government, raised these worries with the Financial Times. He said it mean government was more interested in “quick wins” than long-term policy achievements.
The Conservative Party Chair has also changed hands, pun intended, as Richard Holden replaces Greg Hands.
Sunak’s reshuffle is perhaps indicative of a party, moving further into its ‘teenage years’ in power, continuing to struggle with its internal identity crisis.
The churn of ministers signals the difficulty the party are experiencing in convincing the public that anything will really change.
Furthermore, Cameron’s return raises many questions as to the direction of the party: torn between its more centrist old guard and populist right. Without doubt, his return will not be unanimously popular with the party or the public.
Whilst Braverman returns to the backbenches, it is unlikely that the increasingly vocal right-wing faction of the party that she represents will retreat without a fight.
