But in the UK, the chancellor is given the power to steer the government\u2019s economic policy in the drafting of the budget. They also have almost-exclusive control of tax policy. By convention, the chancellor will not disclose or discuss his or her policy intentions prior to budget day to avoid being lobbied. <\/p>\n
Their role is to maintain fiscal restraint \u2013 in other words, to keep a tight grip on spending and debt \u2013 and resist calls by various secretaries to increase spending in their departments. Perhaps Healey\u2019s appointment to the chancellery is particularly surprising since he himself stood down as defence secretary<\/a> because he felt the Treasury would not give his department the funding it needed.<\/p>\n In my book<\/a>, Ideologues, Partisans, and Loyalists: Ministers and Policymaking in Parliamentary Cabinets, I show that cabinet ministers who are appointed for their managerial credentials rather than their policy views are more likely to be loyal to the prime minister. Ideologues are more likely to push for their ideal policies, at the risk of government instability. <\/p>\n Healey was not the person many expected to be Burnham\u2019s pick for chancellor. In the days leading up to the new prime minister\u2019s coronation and cabinet appointments, Mahmood appeared to be the frontrunner. Instead, she continues as home secretary.<\/p>\n In some ways even less is known, economically speaking, about Healey than about Mahmood. She at least is known to have shared many of Burnham\u2019s progressive policy ideas, as she called for a higher top rate of income tax<\/a> back in 2014. <\/p>\n Keeping Mahmood as home secretary is in many respects a mature decision \u2013 she has been very effective in the role. But it is disappointing that Burnham did not replace Rachel Reeves in Number 11 with another woman. <\/p>\n Mahmood would have been only the second woman chancellor of the exchequer<\/a> in the UK\u2019s history. I have been involved in research on finance ministers across 50 democracies, and according to our data<\/a>, only around 15% are women. <\/p>\n Women finance ministers can have important differences from their male counterparts. While both men and women come to the role primarily from bureaucracy, higher education and the legal sectors, men are significantly more likely to come from the corporate and banking sectors. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to be drawn from international organisations such as the World Bank. <\/p>\n And if he had chosen Miliband as his chancellor, Burnham would have had a close ally<\/a> in terms of policy priorities. But the new prime minister has had to strike a balance between ideals and reality. The fact is that he is not free to choose whoever he wants for chancellor \u2013 the markets watch the government closely and are looking for appointments that signal economic credibility<\/a>. <\/p>\n The markets have certainly been watching this appointment<\/a> extremely closely. In fact, after Healey\u2019s appointment, shares in Britain\u2019s biggest defence companies saw a \u00a34 billion boost<\/a> amid expectations that he will sign off on higher defence spending.<\/p>\n Unlike the more ideological Miliband, known for his strong and at times divisive views on energy policy<\/a>, Healey can be described as a more \u201cmanagerial\u201d choice. <\/p>\n Healey worked as a journalist and a campaign manager before his election to parliament in 1997, so lacks professional experience in finance or economics outside government. But he is known for his effectiveness as defence secretary and has policy experience through junior appointments in the Treasury under Tony Blair.<\/p>\nIdeology and loyalty<\/h2>\n
![\"andy](\"https:\/\/images.theconversation.com\/files\/749084\/original\/file-20260721-57-3zrx89.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.1&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip\")
<\/a>
\n Simon Dawson\/No 10 Downing Street<\/a>, CC BY-NC-ND<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/287896\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n