The IfG Ministers Database tells us a lot about the last six decades in UK politics

The ministers who make up a government are a source of endless discussion in Westminster: who’s up, who’s down, who’s in and who’s out. Despite this, it can be remarkably hard to find reliable information on the ever-shifting state of the government frontbench. An endless merry-go-round of ministers can leave even the most engaged observers disoriented and confused.

To help remedy this we are publishing, for the first time, our IfG Ministers Database – containing information on the more than 3,500 ministerial appointments made since the 1979 general election and charting the careers of more than 1,100 individuals. We believe this interactive tool – the product of hundreds of hours of work – offers unparalleled insight into the corridors of power. Two of the architects of this work give their verdict on what the database tells us about UK politics over the course of those six decades.

Ministerial churn is too high

Those who have lived through the last few years of British politics will be familiar with the pace of ministerial turnover. Four of the top ten shortest appointments in our database are from the last parliament alone, including Michelle Donelan’s two days as education secretary under Boris Johnson and Grant Shapp’s six days as home secretary under Liz Truss.

But while perhaps accelerating, ministerial turnover is not a recent phenomenon. There have been 23 chief secretaries to the Treasury since 1997, four of whom lasted less than six months in post. In the same time period, there were 25 junior ministers for housing. It is hardly surprising, then, that spending priorities change constantly, or that governments struggle to tackle chronic problems like housebuilding, when ministers can barely get a foot in the door before they are moved on. 

Blame for churn cannot be laid at the door of a single party. Indeed, ministerial turnover was particularly high under Tony Blair, who conducted ten reshuffles during his decade in power including five between the 2001 and 2005 general elections alone. This seriously impeded effective government, and Keir Starmer would be wise not to follow his example.

Government has grown in size in the decades since Thatcher took office…

As our database shows, government has expanded considerably in size and complexity since 1979. The number of ministers grew from 106 at the outset of the Thatcher government to a record of 125 at the end of Rishi Sunak’s time in office. Starmer reduced this total to 118 ministers upon taking office, though the UK still has more government ministers than other comparable democracies.

Cabinet too has been subject to this inflation. While the number of members has barely changed since 1979 – constrained by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act – the number of non-cabinet ministers with a standing invitation to attend has grown considerably. At times under both David Cameron and Boris Johnson, the number of non-members attending cabinet reached double figures.

While this extension of prime ministerial patronage may suit the occupants of No.10, it has for decades prevented cabinet from functioning as an effective decision making body. It was welcome, therefore, that Starmer cut the number of attendees when he took office. He ought to resist the temptation to allow cabinet to creep back up in size.

… but it’s not all bad news

The IfG Ministers Database has positive stories to tell about government too. The number of women serving as ministers, for instance, is higher than it has ever been. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher was just one of four female ministers; today, for the first time, women make up the majority of ministers. Likewise, the new Labour government has seen an increase in the number of ministers representing constituencies outside of South-East England.

Evolution, not revolution

Despite these changes, much about the government frontbench would appear familiar to those earliest ministers in our database, elder statesmen like Lord Hailsham or Michael Heseltine, for example. Ministers continue to be appointed to particular departments, work under the authority of a secretary of state and draw their own authority from the same historic titles held by their predecessors – titles like Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms. It is these continuities that run through and structure our database as much as those differences described above.

But below this surface level, clear evolutions are apparent. Unofficial or ‘courtesy’ titles, like Minister for Social Security and Disability, have been around since the 1970s but grown more common in recent times, helping us build up a picture of the changing priorities of governments (or perhaps, of the priorities governments have chosen to signal) in that time. These titles are particularly changeable and, as a result, often poorly recorded. Our Ministers Database includes accurate job titles for all ministers since 2012 – and many more before that – meaning that, for the first time ever, a systematic analysis of these titles is possible.

What’s next?

The new government is just two months old, but there will doubtless be changes to the ministerial line-up in the weeks and months to come. Our IfG Ministers Database will track these developments and we will keep working to further improve the data. Readers’ input is welcome, so please report anything you spot as you use this new tool, and keep us up to date on how you are using it. 

To explore the database yourself, head to its dedicated page on our website: IfG Ministers Database