Rishi’s reshuffle: new labels, new bosses, same old mess?

Trade has been taken back into business (as it was when I worked there in 2016) and Energy is a separate department (again, as it was in 2016). But does all this deckchair shuffling fundamentally change anything, asks Salma Shah

There is of course an internal logic to these changes; it’s just not obvious what they are externally (AP)

What was tipped to be a smallish reshuffle, replacing the protracted and painful loss of a party chairman, turned out to be a full blown reorganisation of government. Four new departments have been created (which has to be a record): Energy Security and Net Zero, Science Innovation and Technology, a souped up Business and Trade department, and a toned down Culture one.

The chopping and changing of departments is a favoured pastime of what I like to call the “tweakerati”: those making bold symbolic gestures, showcasing the things they care about and renaming departments to be clear they mean business, via the medium of aesthetic tweaking.

But all this machinery of government change (as it’s officially known) is, in my opinion, an erroneous move. The last thing anyone needs is a fight over hotdesking space and a self-appointed design committee trying to work out the best letterhead for their new department.

Imagine trying to deliver a whole new function of government, essentially overnight. This is a colossal admin job; you can almost hear the collective groan emanating around Parliament Square.

What’s worse is that it reverses the changes that were brought in post-Brexit. Trade has been taken back into business (as it was when I worked there in 2016) and Energy is a separate department (again, as it was in 2016). Does all this deckchair shuffling fundamentally change anything? I have not been convinced.

It is of course largely a New Labour thing to rename departments to reflect government priorities. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair renamed and re-imagined around 30 departments between them (and, on one occasion, it is believed they averted ridicule by hastily renaming the department for P.En.I.S. – though it’s difficult to remember what it was supposed to do).

There is of course an internal logic to these changes; it’s just not obvious what they are externally. The challenge remains as to whether the pain of this reorganisation can be translated into meaningful change? This is not something that cuts through to the voting public; with such little time left before an election, is it really the right move?

Wouldn't it have been better to keep Lucy Frazer as housing minister at such a critical time for the sector? Couldn’t we have given Grant Shapps a stronger deputy for energy under the current structure? What will Science, Innovation and Technology even do? Especially if it is, as reports suggest, divorced from the Online Safety Bill; legislation which has huge implications for… innovation and technology.

It always feels good to get yourself organised, and this feels like a spring clean reshuffle – lining the drawers and getting everything labelled and sorted. The only problem is that in a few weeks time it will return to being the jumbled mess it was before, leaving us to ask ourselves if it was really worth the bother?