Cameron’s reshuffle – not exactly a purge of the “male, pale and stale”

This is not a reshuffle which should unduly concern Labour.

While David Cameron has doubled the number of women in or attending the Cabinet,  from four to eight, this is still less than a quarter of the people eligible to sit round that table.

Below Cabinet level, another raft of women have been given long-awaited promotions – Claire Perry, Penny Mordaunt and Amber Rudd, for example – yet still this does not seem like a reshuffle that will solve the PM’s much talked about “women problem”.

Partly that is because, despite the so-called “purge of the male, pale and stale”, many of the biggest vacancies were again filled by white men, of a certain age. Philip Hammond and Michael Fallon being the most striking examples.

Indeed, of the three big international jobs up for grabs – Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and EU Commissioner – none went to a woman. That seems like an opportunity missed for David Cameron, particularly the opportunity to appoint the first female Defence Secretary, which could have served as a powerful symbol of a Conservative government breaking new ground. Instead, he appointed a man first elected to Parliament in 1983.

The other problem the PM has is that becoming more popular with female voters is not simply a matter of promoting more women. Women, like other demographic groups, will ultimately judge the government on what they do.

These new Ministers – male and female alike – have a very limited window of opportunity in which to make their mark on government policy. With only 10 months to go in this Parliament, much of which will be spent in recess or in campaign mode, it is difficult to see how a new Secretary of State such as Nicky Morgan at Education will be able to make their mark.

In Morgan’s case, her biggest asset as Education Secretary is likely to be that she is not Michael Gove. It is hard to imagine that the decision to move Gove on was not at least in part motivated by the need to win the votes of at least some teachers, who are a significant voting block and could make all the difference in crucial marginals.

The shrewdest move Cameron has made in this reshuffle may be the move of William Hague. Allowing the former Tory leader to spend his final 10 months as an MP in a domestic, campaigning role may have a galvanising effect on the Tory grassroots and enable Hague to deploy his wit in the TV studios on a more regular basis. Who would have thought, back in 2001, that William Hague may one day be seen as an asset in a General Election campaign.

But overall, Ed Miliband is unlikely to feel any urgent need to respond with a reshuffle of his own. I suspect he will look at the new frontbench sitting opposite him and conclude that, to a relatively disengaged public, it will look broadly the same as before.

If, or when, the time does come for a final Labour reshuffle before the General Election, Ed’s dilemma will be whether or not to try to coax back one or two older heads to his front bench. He may conclude that he needs a William Hague of his own – a good, experienced, media performer, popular with the grass roots.

Alan Johnson for Shadow Leader of the House, anyone?

Simon Fitzpatrick is Senior Associate at Cicero Group