Ousting Sajid Javid could limit Boris Johnson’s options
Any time a Prime Minister reshuffles his or her cabinet, there are bound to be disappointed ministers — or ex-ministers — turfed out from a job they enjoy in a system that can sometimes prize loyalty over ability.
But last week’s surprise resignation of Sajid Javid, the UK’s short-lived chancellor, could actually limit Boris Johnson’s ability to make personnel changes in the future, even if the latest cabinet shake-up was intended to give him greater short-term control over his ministerial team.
Javid, a Deutsche Bank broker turned politician, had already served as home secretary before being named chancellor of the exchequer. Last summer, he ran against Johnson for the leadership of the Conservative party, together with Dominic Raab (the current foreign secretary), Matt Hancock (the current health secretary) and Michael Gove (currently the minister for the Cabinet Office).
So when Johnson asked him to stay on, but on the proviso that he would have to make do without his own team of political advisors, Javid must have seen this as an attempt to humiliate him.
His subsequent resignation upset the carefully planned changes to the Johnson government, and delayed what was clearly meant to be a precisely choreographed piece of political theatre.
As one former senior Treasury adviser who has worked under more than one chancellor pointed out to me, Javid’s former deputy and now successor, Rishi Sunak, has been given a “hospital pass” with the upcoming Budget that is expected in just a matter of weeks.
But he also suggested that Sunak’s position was now incredibly secure for the foreseeable future.
This is because a Prime Minister that sacks or forces out two chancellors might appear to have a management problem in the eyes of his fellow politicians — not to mention investors. To misquote Oscar Wilde, it is a misfortune to lose one chancellor, but to lose two smacks of carelessness.
Johnson repeatedly made clear during last year’s election campaign that he wanted to spend money — on infrastructure, underserved communities, and economically transformative industries.
Javid, meanwhile, had stated that he would only allow the Prime Minister to spend that money if the borrowing that made it possible was governed by clearly communicated rules and limits.
It is still not clear if there were more serious disagreements between the two men that led to Javid’s departure that have yet to surface. But at this point, for the financial markets and investors who are keeping a close eye on the post-Brexit economy, it will be chancellor Sunak’s ability to maintain fiscal prudence that will be put under the microscope.