It is not their background per se. Its that between them they have such narrow experience to draw on. I can think of management teams... e.g. one in a big well known corporate, that are so similar to each other they even look the same - all tall, thin, wear the same sort of clothes, come from south of england, all think nothing of driving hundreds of miles a week, oh and all white and all male. A less effective team is hard to imagine, because you can only have a good team if there is a mix of talents and outlooks. Could it be, I have wondered, whether there is a problem there of the boss choosing staff in his own image?
It would be the same criticism if a cabinet was swamped with representatives of the transport unions. They would not see the world from enough points of view. We might think that they are not well equipped to have valid opinions on health, education or the workings of investment banks. This is a whole country we are talking about!
So my criticism of Cameron is that he did not choose the best. He chose people like him that he felt most cosy and safe with. Like people he grew up with. Westminster appointments do not work on choosing the best, as people attempt to do when recruiting in other walks of life.