Gove’s return to heart of government renews rivalry with May
|
Version 0 of 1. David Cameron has long held the belief that less is more when it comes to cabinet reshuffles, and on the face of it the strengthening of his authority on winning the Tories’ first overall majority in 23 years hardly seems to have changed his mind. But on Saturday, after confirming the continued roles of his chancellor George Osborne, home secretary Theresa May, foreign secretary Philip Hammond and defence secretary Michael Fallon, the prime minister did something both eye-catching and highly significant. It may even be seen as a flexing of Cameron’s newly bulging muscles. Michael Gove – who moved last July from the Department for Education, reportedly due to his tendency to rub teachers up the wrong way, but also because of the value to Cameron of being able to work closely with him before the general election – was moved from his temporary home in the chief whip’s office to become justice secretary. A source said: “He will be given a brief to look at prisons, sentencing and criminal justice.” Tory sources say the significance lies in the overlapping remits of Gove’s new department and that of Theresa May’s home office. In June last year Cameron forced Gove, then education secretary, to issue a humiliating apology and told May to sack her closest adviser after a row between the two cabinet ministers over who was to blame for extremism in schools became public. Related: Michael Gove back on frontline as David Cameron’s justice chief But now Cameron has pitted the two against each other once again – and he isn’t afraid of the consequences. “Extremism in prisons is a real issue but it is also an area that both the Home Office and the Justice Department could claim to have ownership over,” said one Tory source. “Gove will try to nab this and it will put Theresa’s nose out of joint. That might have been a problem to Cameron at one point, but not after the general election with his renewed authority. And the trouble that comes might even persuade Theresa in a year or so or at the next general election to accept a different job, foreign secretary, perhaps. Get her out of the country.” It may be idle and wild speculation on the part of some Tory MPs, but getting May out of the country, away from Westminster, and into a job that makes plotting over leadership more difficult, is seen by some as a step towards Boris Johnson ultimately stepping into Cameron’s shoes. “There is definite consensus between Osborne, Gove and perhaps Cameron that Boris should be next. Not Theresa. So getting her out of the way would help.” The move also allows Cameron to bring a new as-yet-undisclosed person into the chief whip’s office. It has long been felt by Tory MPs that Gove’s heart was not in the job. Sources claim that he was more comfortable allowing his deputy, Greg Hands, to lead in meetings while he played with his phone. Yet the chief whip’s role is likely to be more important to this government than it has to any since the Jim Callaghan administration in the late 1970s. With a majority of just 12 – smaller even than that which caused John Major so many problems in the 1990s on the issue of the Maastricht treaty – keeping discipline when there are 30 rightwing troublemakers willing to embarrass their leader will be all important. Indeed, on Saturday, in an article published in this newspaper, John Redwood MP, the former Welsh secretary, and reportedly one of the three so-called “bastards” who caused Major so much discomfort, outlines the areas where that threat is most stark. Redwood, the MP for Wokingham, says that this new parliament will be the “home rule parliament”. By that, he tells the prime minister, he means that in any offer to Scotland on devolution, Cameron should address the potentially toxic issue of the Barnett formula which provides Scotland’s UK funding; and he should also deal with “England’s demands for fair treatment”. “Can anyone seriously believe that Scotland can settle her own income tax free from Westminster interference, yet England’s has to be settled by the full Union Parliament?” Redwood writes. And then there is the looming issue of the in-out European referendum that Cameron has promised by 2017. The prime minister has promised to achieve significant and genuine reforms before the referendum, enabling him, and potentially his wider party, to campaign to stay in. Some Tory MPs on the most Eurosceptic wing say that such reforms have to include freedom of movement, an area on which the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, says there is no chance of change. But that doesn’t sound like an excuse that Redwood and others will stomach. “Conservatives and many beyond our party believe too much power has already passed to the EU,” he writes. “We do not like the weekly passage of more laws, Court judgements and regulations by European institutions, as every one of these limits what the UK can decide for herself. Related: Cameron would be wise to seek Labour’s support over Scotland and Europe “EU laws can prevent parliament from tackling abuses and problems at home. To understand what Mr Cameron wants, we need to remind ourselves of the seminal Bloomberg speech made in 2013. I share the stated belief at the heart of it: ‘It is national parliaments which are and will remain the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.’ “The negotiation should stick to this fundamental question. How can the treaties be revised for all, or for the UK by exception, so that our parliament can resume its rightful role as the ultimate arbiter of our law, budgets and taxes? Mr Cameron’s vision is an appealing one. He seeks ‘a new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments, where member states combine in flexible co-operation’. “Creating that against the background of a detailed EU legal framework and a Euro area pressing on to political union is a challenge. Conservatives wish him well... “Mr Cameron’s promise to bring immigration down to tens of thousands will also require early action. “Labour added the pledge to control immigration to their carved stone, though they did not quantify it. Ukip may only have won one seat, but they did garner four million votes by stressing the need to control our own borders. Both main parties sought and gained votes by promising immigration control. That, too, is important and sensitive business for the parliament that assembles later this month.” Redwood adds that he doesn’t believe that relations with the back bench need to dissolve to the state that they were left under the Major administration. But he does raise the importance that Cameron doesn’t disappoint. “This is not some new Maastricht. There a predominantly Eurosceptic party wanted to prevent a prime minister giving more powers away to the EU, so there was conflict. “Here a Conservative party that yearns for less meddling EU government will be urging the prime minister on to the full restoration of home rule. There is no disagreement about the aim, but the prime minister has to avoid disappointment about how much has been achieved to further it.” The consequences of disappointment could be messy. |