Will there be a cull of ministers after the next general election?

Whoever wins the next general election, they will have to make some tough choices about public  spending. Will they dare look very close to home though?

In late 1914 when Britain ruled much of the world and was fighting a world war, there were a total of 49 ministers. Gordon Brown’s government currently has 119 ministers – an increase of 143%.

Some of the growth is for reasons most people across most parties would support, such as the creation of the National Health Service resulting in the creation of some new roles. But those areas of ‘consensus growth’ are relatively small, and to an extent are offset by the decline in the number of posts required by having an Empire.

At the Cabinet level, those two trends have largely balanced out, with the Cabinet growing by only two. But lower down the ministerial food chain, there has been a massive explosion in the number of posts – frequently driven by the need for posts to use as patronage in internal party control, and by the status symbol that attaches to the number of ministers a department has.

Although earlier this week David Cameron talked about cutting the costs of government, he hasn’t committed himself to reducing the number of ministers. Indeed, with his pledge to cut the number of MPs, his policies would produce a Parliament proportionately even more swayed by ministerial patronage than the current one.

Cutting the number of ministers wouldn’t just be about saving money (welcome though that would be), nor about leading by example to the public sector when Cabinet members lecture others on saving money (appropriate though that would be), it would also force some hard thinking about just how much power Whitehall really still has to cling on to.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Tom Papworth 10th Sep '09 - 11:10am

    In the C19th we managed with four departments (Foreign, Home, Treasury, War) and were the most powerful and productive nation on earth.

    Just a thought.

  • “In late 1914…”

    DIdn’t those 49 include Churchill, Lloyd-George and Asquith? Where are the comparable talents now?

One Trackback

  • By A better politics for less: where Nick Clegg’s axe would fall on Sun 20th September 2009 at 11:38 am.

    […] particularly good to see the proposals to cut the number of ministers given, as I pointed out earlier: In late 1914 when Britain ruled much of the world and was fighting a world war, there were a total […]

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Michael BG
    Joe Bourke, Pavlina Tcherneva sets out her vision of what a job guarantee scheme would be like, but I also talk of a job guarantee and a training guarantee. ...
  • Joe Bourke
    When we are talking about Keynesian economics it is important to remember the era that Keynes was writing in . This is why the analysis is sometimes referred to...
  • Joe Bourke
    Peter Martin, Dr Hunt's experience and credentials as an Internationally recognized monetary economist speaks for itself. He has a long record over many yea...
  • Andrew Southgate
    Fiona:Don't worry- if there was a 10% swing to Labour in the next electon- as there was last night in Old Bexley and Sidcup -then Keir Starmer would be in Numbe...
  • nigel hunter
    What will he promise this time....