Cabinet reshuffles, understood as personnel-related changes within the lifetime of a cabinet, have become one of the most important political phenomena of our time. They shape intra-governmental relations, intensifying or helping to solve cabinet conflicts. They are key instruments for prime ministers to promote and demote party representatives, with far-reaching possible consequences within the cabinet and beyond. They also have the potential to increase governmental efficiency and trigger policy change. In short, they have a powerful effect on government, making them crucial objects of both political and academic interest.
Nevertheless, they are not without costs. Frequent reshuffles can undermine the legitimacy of the executive and cause permanent damage to the reputation of a government (e.g., when the move of a popular minister, such as Alistair Darling or Jeremy Hunt, back to the backbenches shows that the PM lacks the courage to make needed changes). They can also be costly for the country: Ministerial churn prevents departments from developing expertise over the years and makes it difficult to hold them accountable for the outcomes of their work in parliament.
Moreover, reshuffles may reveal Prime Ministers’ weaknesses, such as when they can only offer promotions to loyal ministers and not to their rivals. Thus, they risk alienating party donors and members, as well as the public, by revealing their lack of capacity to govern. In these conditions, putting time limits on ministerial reshuffles might be an attractive alternative that could reduce the squabbling between Prime Ministers for internal power-sharing advantages and the disruptive effects of a reshuffle.