Boris Johnson’s cabinet is surprisingly young – but is it also weak?

Ministers are often derided as weak yes-people in comparison with the giants of yesteryear, writes John Rentoul

The prime minister, with one of the biggest of the ‘biggish beasts’ in his cabinet (AP)

Youthful is not a word that people often associate with Boris Johnson’s government, but his cabinet is younger than most since the Second World War. What is striking about it is that all of its members are under 60. The oldest is Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, who is 58. The youngest, Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, is 39.

It is also more ethnically diverse than the cabinet has ever been before; on the other hand, women are now seriously underrepresented, with only five since Anne-Marie Trevelyan’s Department for International Development was absorbed by the Foreign Office.

Never mind the diversity, though: are they any good? It’s been fashionable for commentators to bemoan the absence of politicians of stature on both sides of the Commons, and to compare today’s front benches unfavourably with the giants of yesteryear.

But Professor Tim Bale, of Queen Mary University of London, has lit a provocative firework of an article in Prospect, where he points out that the idea that the cabinet is a collection of faceless yes-people selected for their unwillingness to stand up to the prime minister goes back a long way. It was a charge levelled against Margaret Thatcher’s ministers, who included such significant figures as Nigel Lawson, Geoffrey Howe, Kenneth Baker, Norman Fowler and Kenneth Clarke.

Tony Blair’s early cabinet seemed lacking in power partly because he stuck with the shadow cabinet that had been elected by Labour MPs, but many of his ministers grew to be effective managers of important departments.

Bale makes the case that several of Johnson’s “barons” will leave more than a footnote in the history books, too.

Michael Gove, a productive minister at the heart of government, is rewriting the constitution by abolishing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Rishi Sunak is easily the most consequential minister apart from Johnson – an ironic commentary on Dominic Cummings’s ambition to render the Treasury a branch office of 10 Downing Street. Meanwhile, Sajid Javid, back at the table after a Cummings-inspired leave of absence, is a minister of some ability, facing a challenge of historic proportions in fixing the NHS.

Reputations rise and fall. Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, is experiencing turbulence for holidaying while the Taliban took over Kabul, but Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, has had quite a good end of war.

And no one can overlook the political success of Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, who has built a following among Conservative Party members by signing a series of trade deals to replace those the UK enjoyed in the EU. It’s easy to deride her contribution to national welfare so far, but harder to ignore her claim to a bigger job in the next reshuffle.

As Bale says, Johnson’s cabinet is like most in history. It contains strong and weak ministers in fluctuating proportions, but always with a “bunch of biggish beasts” on whom history will look back.

Yours,

John Rentoul

Chief political commentator