For David Cameron, the need to calm the growing grousing about his leadership and for him to be seen to act to tackle a double-dip recession, made a reshuffle imperative. By Tuesday, the prime minister had promoted and demoted dozens of people of varying talent in his first extensive changes in power.
But far from reassuring defenders of his integrity, resolve and navigational abilities to steer the coalition through the ever choppier waters ahead, the net result appears less than successful. It is a reshuffle that betrays signs of panic on the part of the prime minister rather than providing what he hoped would be an example of strong strategic pragmatism.
The danger for the prime minister is that – as a succession of post-reshuffle leaks seem to bear out – his image as "Dithering Dave" is further reinforced. Since the start of the year there has been a growing chorus of internal critics wondering what, precisely, Mr Cameron stands for. Is he a radical or a moderate? A pragmatist or an idealist? The harshest among them say he lacks authority, gravitas and character – qualities needed to hold together an increasingly fragile coalition.
If this was a reshuffle to answer some of those questions, then it failed. It did not show a ruthless, courageous prime minister fearlessly laying waste to under-performers or off-message ministers.
Iain Duncan Smith, the welfare secretary, refused to vacate his post. Partly out of deference to a former leader of the party, but mostly because Duncan Smith has vociferous support among the right of the Conservative party, Cameron felt unable to oust him. And so, the running battles between Duncan Smith and the Treasury over the implementation of his preferred universal credit – the most significant overhaul of the benefits system since the welfare state began – will likely continue even though the chancellor is opposed on grounds of cost. Similarly, Ken Clarke was ousted from his post as justice secretary, but was left in cabinet where he lays claim to a new post: minister without portfolio. Or, minister without department. Or staff. Or budget.
The only real surprise is that Mr Clarke, an accomplished, likeable and popular politician, agreed to such a non-position in what will be, in all likelihood, his last cabinet post.
As a result, Labour has erroneously called this the "no change" reshuffle. It is anything but. In fact the reshuffle signals very clearly that Cameron is ready to jettison much of the modernisation model that he and his team have so assiduously constructed.
It is instructive to remember the care and with which that image was constructed – due in large part to his now-departed adviser Steve Hilton. It was fashioned around an agenda that embraced women, ethnic minorities, compassion and environmentalism. Cameron even promised that by 2015, a third of his government would be female. After his reshuffle, less than 20% are women, mostly in the junior ranks. Another two key strands of brand Cameron circa 2005-2009, "hug-a-hoodie" compassionate conservativism and a passion for green issues, have been buried.
More than anything last week was a re-branding exercise. The last marketing director – Hilton – has left the building. George Osborne seems to have assumed those duties.
Welcome Chris Grayling as justice secretary as Ken Clarke departs, taking with him his intelligent observations on the savings that can accrue from rehabilitation. In comes a more traditional and populist view on penal policy. Crudely put, this means more prisons and more prisoners. Except that there is no money for increasing the number of prisons. This opens up the possibility of banging up more prisoners in the same number of cells, adding to the threat of recidivism.
Among the other new appointments are Owen Paterson at environment, described as "a prominent hater of wind farms" and a climate change sceptic, and Nick Boles at planning. "It's essential that we … do not allow the hysterical scaremongering of latter-day Luddites to strangle developments that will boost living standards," Boles said this year, fuelling suspicions that the green belt is no longer sacrosanct.
In reinforcement of that message, ministers launched a string of initiatives ranging from state guarantees for house building to a temporary relaxation of planning requirements for home extensions to boost an economy that Osborne insists is far from flagging.
It seems only yesterday that David Cameron was urging us: "Vote Blue, Go Green". He even had solar panels fitted to his London home in 2006. More recently, the man who fitted those panels charged Cameron with "lying" over his commitment to environmentalism, and claimed that the coalition's slashing of public subsidies has destroyed the solar electricity industry.
Cameron always insisted that he is a small state, low taxes disciple of Thatcher, liberal on social issues, green at heart with a strong belief in decentralised power and localism. The reshuffle, in particular the impression it bolsters that environmental policies and restraints on development are being sidelined, seems evidence of a rising fear that the market, left to itself, is not riding to the rescue of the British economy at the speed anticipated. If this search for growth mines too narrow a seam, the misjudgments and flip-flops can only multiply.
An example of that occurred within days of the reshuffle. Eric Pickles, the communities minister, warned that he will strip local councils of their planning powers and hand them to a centralised planning inspectorate if they show a record of poor quality or slow decision making. The threat is designed to force councils living in "an economic La-La Land" to allow more house building. Whether in bypassing the planning system, hinting at a third Heathrow runway or building a high-speed rail line via the Chilterns, Cameron is coming into increasing conflict with those who should be his natural supporters.
Nevertheless, Cameron continues to be the Conservatives' greatest asset with supporters inside and outside the party. His fluency and presentational skills, which won him such plaudits in the early days of his leadership, have begun to be replaced by a growing sense of arrogance, entitlement and a lack of the common touch. This is most dangerous for the prime minister. The booing of the chancellor at the Paralympic Games was an extraordinary public rebuke and gave voice to those who feel that the heart of this government has become dangerously disconnected from the rest of us.
