Do governments increase cabinet appointments as elections approach to secure pensions?
Analysis by months until election, comparing Pre-2015 vs 2015+ pension rules (1970-2024)
Election Pension Theory: When a government believes it may lose the next election, it may accelerate cabinet appointments and shorten individual tenures to ensure more senior members qualify for a cabinet pension.
Prediction: If the pension theory is valid, we should see a decline in "one-time only" appointments after 2015.
Appointments per election
Per election (9.1%)
Appointments per election
Per election (0.0%)
Pension abusers per election
Percentage point change
| Time Window | Total Appts | One-Time Only | One-Time % | Avg Tenure | Short % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-2015 Era | |||||
| Last 1 month | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 0.73 | 50.0% |
| Last 3 months | 5 | 1 | 20.0% | 1.78 | 20.0% |
| Last 6 months | 55 | 5 | 9.1% | 2.19 | 41.8% |
| Last 12 months | 294 | 32 | 10.9% | 1.37 | 64.3% |
| More than 12 months | 9765 | 758 | 7.8% | 1.91 | 24.6% |
| 2015+ Era | |||||
| Last 3 months | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2.41 | 0.0% |
| Last 6 months | 84 | 0 | 0.0% | 1.19 | 60.7% |
| Last 12 months | 169 | 2 | 1.2% | 1.30 | 60.4% |
| More than 12 months | 4786 | 375 | 7.8% | 1.84 | 27.8% |
Pension abuse patterns for each parliament, showing appointments made in different time windows before each election:
| Year | Party | Era | Final 3 Months | Final 6 Months | Final 9 Months | Final 12 Months | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appts | Abusers (%) | Appts | Abusers (%) | Appts | Abusers (%) | Appts | Abusers (%) | |||
| 1970 | Conservative | Pre-2015 | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 2 | 0 (0.0%) | 19 | 0 (0.0%) | 21 | 0 (0.0%) |
| 1974 | Labour | Pre-2015 | 3 | 1 (33.3%) | 10 | 3 (30.0%) | 77 | 15 (19.5%) | 106 | 17 (16.0%) |
| 1979 | Conservative | Pre-2015 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 3 | 1 (33.3%) | 4 | 2 (50.0%) | 8 | 3 (37.5%) |
| 1983 | Conservative | Pre-2015 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 17 | 0 (0.0%) | 17 | 0 (0.0%) | 17 | 0 (0.0%) |
| 1987 | Conservative | Pre-2015 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 10 | 0 (0.0%) | 27 | 1 (3.7%) |
| 1992 | Conservative | Pre-2015 | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 2 | 0 (0.0%) | 2 | 0 (0.0%) | 2 | 0 (0.0%) |
| 1997 | Labour | Pre-2015 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 3 | 1 (33.3%) | 3 | 1 (33.3%) | 20 | 5 (25.0%) |
| 2001 | Labour | Pre-2015 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 10 | 0 (0.0%) | 10 | 0 (0.0%) | 10 | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2005 | Labour | Pre-2015 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 6 | 0 (0.0%) | 17 | 0 (0.0%) | 17 | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2010 | Conservative | Pre-2015 | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 5 | 0 (0.0%) | 66 | 6 (9.1%) |
| 2015 | Conservative | 2015+ | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 | 0 (0.0%) | 6 | 1 (16.7%) | 61 | 2 (3.3%) |
| 2019 | Conservative | 2015+ | 1 | 0 (0.0%) | 84 | 0 (0.0%) | 106 | 0 (0.0%) | 108 | 0 (0.0%) |
This analysis examines whether governments systematically accelerate cabinet appointments as elections approach, and whether the 2015 pension reform affected this behavior:
Limitations: