As a way to reward loyalty and punish dissent, build alliances, manage party factions and settle cabinet conflicts, prime ministers can use the allocation of ministerial portfolios to define public policy (Berlinski et al. 2012). This article argues that while the partisan distribution of ministerial portfolios may not always be affected by reshuffles, these events do provide an opportunity to redefine the political agenda and signal policy shifts.
Hilary Armstrong and Tim Montgomerie discussed the process of reshuffle, noting that it is notoriously difficult to organise and can sometimes be counterproductive. They also argued that it can reveal weakness in a PM, as when they are forced to move senior ministers they have wanted to promote to backbenches. This can be a sign that the PM lacks control of key departments such as education or health.
They further pointed out that there is a wide range of reasons why prime ministers reshuffle, including the need to reward high-performing ministers by moving them into positions with greater responsibility and to remove those who are not performing well in an attempt to improve departmental performance. They also point out that reshuffles can be used to signal policy shifts, such as adding new ministerial roles or changing which ministers attend cabinet meetings. Finally, they note that reshuffles can be used as a way to signal internal tensions, such as when a prime minister dismisses or demotes a minister in response to a scandal or other event.
About the Author
