Forget MPs - David Cameron’s appointment as Foreign Secretary should be the norm

I could write a book about how ridiculous our system of selecting ministers and secretaries of state is, but we don’t have the time.

Our reliance on a shallow pool of ineptness, the gaping void where expertise craves to exist, must end. The practice of appointments from outside the legislature must be introduced.

Indeed, when I want to ensure the best and brightest are governing this country – operating the levers of power and steering the great ship of state – clearly we want to restrict the search to a chamber of mediocrity; a chamber into which one only needs luck; enough money; and a symmetrical face.

When David Cameron stepped out of that land rover and walked into Number 10 last week, many a jaw dropped down to the floor. The political commentariat quickly deduced that he would be Foreign Secretary and they were bang on the money. Without a doubt, it was a bizarre moment and one of the most shocking returns to government in quite some time.

Should it be so shocking to us?

Of course, Cameron – now Lord Cameron – had left government in a fairly spectacular fashion. He lost a referendum on EU membership that he had introduced and resigned the day after. On top of that, people are rightfully perturbed over some of his international dealings since his resignation.

For all his faults, Cameron’s appointment to the role was a masterstroke by Rishi Sunak. As Prime Minister, the new Foreign Secretary contrasts so sharply with the majority of his Cabinet colleagues in the authority he brings to the table. He is an undeniable heavyweight at a table of cardboard cutouts.

But this isn’t all about Cameron himself. This is about a system of governance that punishes expertise and rewards personal loyalty and ambition. A system that interprets democracy in childish and fundamentalist terms and shuts out our best and brightest from the halls of power.

The United States has a far better system for appointing a Cabinet. For example, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has decades of experience working on foreign policy matters. While we cannot dismiss the fact that his loyalty to President Joe Biden played a role in his appointment, it was not loyalty alone that landed Blinken the job. He was a member of the National Security Council; worked with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and was a fellow at the prestigious foreign policy think tank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Blinken is more than qualified for his position.

And what of David Cameron’s predecessor? What made James Cleverly MP so suited to the role of Foreign Secretary? His work in sales? Or perhaps his time as Chair of the Waste and Recycling Board while in the London Assembly?

Grant Shapps is Defence Secretary. Why? Because he’s loyal to Sunak and can string a sentence together in front of a camera. He has zero qualifications for his position. How about appointing David Quarrey, Britain’s Ambassador to NATO and a former National Security Advisor, instead? Or someone from the defence think tank The Royal United Services Institute? Or a former head of MI6? Throw them into the House of Lords and get them to work doing what they know best. Possibilities abound when not constrained to the painted smiles chosen by the masses.

But of course, for the sake of democracy, the aforementioned chamber of mediocrity – the House of Commons – must remain sovereign.

Much like the United States, all of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet appointments should be subject to review by parliamentary committee. Throughout their tenures, ministers and secretaries of state will report to such committees for the accountability we see currently occur in the Commons. If a minister is not performing to the standards expected by the people’s representatives, in terms of either ethics or competence, the legislative can remove them from office.

This isn’t just about expertise. Amending the ministerial process would do much to tear apart the absurd mesh of governmental branches that Britain has grown accustomed to. We recoil at the idea of the judiciary being interwoven with another branch; why on Earth do we tolerate such a triste between the executive and the legislature?

I’m not advocating for a presidential system. A compromise in which the monarchy remains the official Head of State and in which the supremacy of the House of Commons is sustained involves the Prime Minister remaining part of that chamber. It is right that the party which forms a majority in the House should form a government; it is through this that representation plays its role and we avoid the constant deadlocks known well in America.

All that changes is that the ruling party’s leader is able to equip the governmental machine with those able to operate it. How refreshing would it be to have MPs who did not have to juggle their representative duties with the demands of an office they are horrendously unqualified for?

It wouldn’t be a perfect system. What would be? Political opportunism always finds a way in and a Prime Minister’s choices won’t always be first-rate.

But I’d bet on getting someone qualified from a choice of millions over a choice of hundreds any day.