It is almost as if the general election did not happen. All the speculation about hung parliaments and minority governments was for nothing. And we are back with a single party majority government.
The shape of Whitehall – and most of the faces – looks very much as it did at the end of March when parliament was dissolved. More than two thirds of the Cabinet, including the holders of the main offices of state and the heads of all the largest spending departments, are the same. And, unusually for a second term administration, there have been no big changes to the machinery of government – no abolition of departments, no mergers.
But that does not mean it is business as usual. Continuity is important but it is also deceptive. The end of the coalition means that ministers feel unbound and unconstrained. In one sense, this should make government simpler. While decision-making for the past five years has been by negotiation between increasingly fractious coalition partners, it will now be more straightforward. So the Cabinet committee structure is likely to be streamlined. The quad has gone.
The communications machinery can also be simpler, with no need to balance messaging between coalition partners. There is also the less formal factor that it is a government of friends, since at its core – in a number of key positions – are several allies and supporters of the chancellor, George Osborne.
The government’s – and, in particular, David Cameron’s – political standing is very strong, merely because winning an overall majority was so unexpected. And while the Conservatives’ overall majority is, on paper, just 12 (less than the 21 which the Major government had after the 1992 election) its position is likely to be much stronger in practice – at least initially, as most of the opposition parties regroup and recover after their losses. Moreover, the Conservatives have a margin of nearly 100 over Labour. Of course, that will change over time as by-elections occur, the odd MP defects and, in particular, as backbenchers become more rebellious.
Related content
Sue Cameron: Civil service expertise could raise the bar for political promises
New minister for the Cabinet Office Matt Hancock to set out Whitehall reform vision
Dave Penman: If the government wants radical change, it needs to take the civil service with it
How to motivate employees in the Civil Service in 2015
The sense of superficial familiarity also masks significant challenges that will have a big impact on the civil service. First, and most directly, will be the spending review to be undertaken over the next few months. This would be demanding enough at any time but the options have been narrowed by the commitment to £8 billion more for the NHS, the £12 billion of so far unidentified savings from the welfare budget and by the pressures to increase defence spending. It is going to be very tough on some departments, both in seeking further efficiency savings to meet the £10 billion target for annual savings by 2017-18, and in cutting programmes.
Second, the government has promised an in/out referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017, and it could be earlier. Discussions have already started but it is unclear how long any negotiations might take in view of the opposition of other EU countries to any formal revision of current treaties. George Osborne is likely to take a leading role, as elsewhere in government. It will require skilful party management for the Conservative leadership to navigate through the talks with the rest of the EU, probable divisions among both ministers and Tory MPs, and the referendum itself. That will dominate politics until the issue is resolved.
Third, there is the challenge of Scotland following the SNP’s electoral triumph on May 7. While Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, has been careful not to claim that this is a mandate for a second referendum on independence, the SNP is pressing for an extension of the transfer of powers – on employment, the minimum wage, national insurance and large parts of welfare – going well beyond the draft bill published before the election (based on the Smith agreement of late November). This is likely to be a gradual process, played out both at Westminster, led by the SNP’s 56 MPs, and in negotiations between the London and Edinburgh governments, with the background of the elections for the Scottish Parliament in May 2016.
But it is not just Scotland: devolution more broadly is on the agenda with proposals for Wales and Northern Ireland and the drive to decentralise powers to English cities. This is spearheaded by George Osborne, but will be given a further push by the appointment of Greg Clark, a committed localiser, to run the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Yet what is so far missing is any sense that devolution and decentralisation are being looked at as a whole. There is still the impression of a piecemeal approach divided between the Cabinet Office and several departments, when there are, in practice, inter-connections in what is becoming an increasingly federal state. The UK question cannot be ignored.
Overall, the lack of changes to the Cabinet team underline how this is likely to be a parliament of two halves: the first, up to the EU referendum; and the second, afterwards, running to the 2020 general election, when David Cameron has said he will have stood down as Conservative leader.