There are reshuffles and there are reshuffles.

The first kind of ministerial redesign occurs after an election. In that situation, the frontbench lineup that goes into the election campaign is often not the lineup that comes out, whether through the decisions of voters or the leader.

The second is the kind of reshuffle that happens mid-term. That is quite a different exercise.

After an election, a prime minister starts with a blank page and the authority of having won an election. That’s the time for maximum creativity in who gets put where, for rewards and occasional retribution, if they’re into that, and for signposting what your government cares most and least about through how portfolios are crafted. Win again and it’s that and more.

A reshuffle between elections is a whole other thing. Mid-term reshuffles are driven either by retirements or political necessity. Sometimes, as in the current case, it’s both.

Many factors influencing the shape of a reshuffle are constant whether it comes after or before an election - factional and geographical representation in the ministry, seniority, gender, praetorian calculations about political allies and possible threats and, of course, merit. The priority order of these can change according to timing and circumstance.

Ministerial retirements make a frontbench redesign unavoidable. Retirements aren’t always at the time of a prime minister’s choosing. They also aren’t always voluntary. The voluntary ones are mostly foreshadowed privately and can be negotiated to fit a timetable that has a political upside.

Sometimes would-be retirees might need a sweetener to wait a bit longer. In extreme cases, more stick than carrot may be involved but the carrot is usually more effective.

Retirements can also be suggested, requested or at least encouraged, to create the opportunity for a reshuffle needed for other reasons. Sweeteners can really help here, diplomatic or other posts in particular.

If........

© The Guardian