Core-Executive Flashcards
What key areas does the PM have influence in ?
- Power of patronage
- Authority in the cabinet system
- Public Standing
- Policy-making input
- Prime Ministers Office
- Cabinet Office
What are the main theories of Executive Power ?
Bagehot- Cabinet Government, PM ‘first amongst equals’.
Hennessey- Cabinet committees are the ‘engine rooms’ of government
Crossman, Dowding, Madgwick - Prime minister is dominant
Smith- Core-Executive Theory
Jones- Elastic Band theory- Power is dynamic
Foley, Webb- Presidentialisation theory
Argument
Best Theory= Core-Executive, but this is because the Prime minister has so much power to mould the role of PM that it is impossible to sort all previous pm’s into one box because their leadership changed so much.
Kitchen cabinet/ Ability to form a sofa government shows power of the PM. Real power lies within PM, and cabinet committees if the pm allows it.
PM has to be strong with media and party unity, this has it constraints as we have seen with cabinet rebellion/loss of support : Brown, Blair, Thatcher.
Blair’s Executive
Shows: Direct attempt to distance from Major’s government, which in turn shows how conscious the pm has become of the media/image.
Reasserted central government
Promoted ‘Joint Up’ Government
Set targets for policy implications and service delivery
special government task force set up to promote the coordination of policies.
Bilateral ‘Sofa Government’ bypassed cabinet informal shows only conventional to consult cabinet.
Cabinet Office grew to 2,500
Order to allow cabinet office to instruct civil service
Created strategy and deliverance Units in cabinet office
Fused PMO and CO
Took control of NI peace process
Leadership Stretch and spatial leadership
But- lost support of anti-terrorism bill in 3rd term
Brown- Chancellor Treasury
Set up the ‘Comprehensive Spending Review’ and public service agreements
Blair announced health spending changes without consulting Blair
Eventual loss of authority over Iraq
Differentiated Polity Model
Rod Rhodes
Hollowing out of the state
Different actors rely upon each other, all competing for power.
Policy Communities- small groups with more power
Issue networks- Larger body of network actors
Asymetric Power Model
Power remains within the core, but branched out as they are interdependent.
Brown’s government
Failed to call an election: Seen as weak as he never regained from the loss of popularity in 2007
Stopped informal meetings because he saw how this had hindered Blairs gov.
Portrayed himself as dictatorial and impotent which cemented his inability to deal with people.
Expenses scandal reflected badly on him 2009.
Forced to back down over 10p tax rate.
Dowding’s Argument
The powerful forces that a PM has make the PM more like a PM than President so it is inaccurate because of institutional differences.
PMO
PM already strong
Centralisation of office
Personalisation is a separate process
US- President doesn’t lead policy in the same way.
British ministers more effected by how their leader is seen than in the US where they are seen as separate: incomparable.
The Personalisation of the PM has moved them further from the US as the local candidates become less important in the UK.
Not a linear process, i.e. Blair featured more in 1997 campaign than in 2005 ( this supports core-executive model.)
General effect of media has been misinterpreted as presidentialisation when it really effects all mp’s, e.g. can tarnish mps standing Enoch Powell Edward heath sacked and can damage pms standing.
Institutionalisation
PM has ability to restructure exec unlike Pres.
Centralisation of government press machine
Increasing importance of cabinet committees
More centralised, Blair increased pmo and co, Heath set up central policy review.
More flexible constitution: Blair and Thatcher dominated to avoid disunity but pm has always had power to do this.
US- incomparable
Congress suggest legislature with little imput from the executive
e.g. Congressional Quarterly: only 80-90% legislature agreed upon e.g. Obamas health care bill
Less Veto players in the UK
PMs are chosen by electorate so they will automatically have more power to pass legislature .
Camerons Executive
Constraint: Wanted to distance himself from the ‘freakery’ which was Blair’s government control.
Withdrew over EU
Spatial leadership
Majority
Presidentialisation
Thatcher
Preffered planning to be through the PMO
Contacted cabinet committees before cabinet discussion, brought to cabinet already decided
This allowed her to cement her authority when she had little of it.
Had to include ‘wets’ in first term of cabinet
Poll Tax , suggested by ministers who thought she would approve of it despite admitting their reservations shows pandering to her ideas
Ultimate loss: Not in cabinet although she lost support, was through being unable to appeal to the electorate and parliament through unpopularity of the poll tax when party was divided.
Too much power, went off her game, over dominant
81 and 90 cabinet revolts
Camerons Coalition
Marked by constraint to present harmony
Has given staff more influence on policy but has been brutal in putting down if they are unpopular.
Strained by coalition
the ‘Quad’ more informal meetings
Revival of Core-Executive, out of no choice
Lack of power to pass legislature
Webb and Pguntke’s argument
Executive: Enhancing power sources recently
Party: Less constrained by party
Criticism: Not comparable since US candidates seen as separate, UK have to follow leader, also gives PM more power because they have more support in parliament.
Electorate: Personalisation of politics
Foley: Presidentialisation
Argument
Spatial leadership, Blairs personal mandate backed by the Sun, responsible for Iraq, personal advisors consolidates leadership
Ignores restraints on PM
Criticisms:
Foley exaggerates Blair’s power, John Prescott was influential in dropping clause 4 and given influence of environment department, and Brown as treasury.
Thatcher- was constrained in first term by cabinet though she later grew.
President and party are separate, no responsibility to the pres in US doesn’t reflect badly on Trump.
Executive branch isn’t fused like UK.
Bagehot
Cabinet gov
First amongst Equals
Indirect Government
Outdated
Crossman
Elective Dictatorship Hailsham
President Dominates
Smith 1963
Core-executive
Recognises that power is changing and dynamic interplay
PM has to acknowledge that they are dependent and depended upon to succeed
Acknowledges the importance of the civil service
Power of the Party
Mutual relationship
Can make the pm stronger or weaker, if united or disunited.
Power of the electorate
Foley’s theory is most true here
Spatial Leadership
Sources of power if electorate support means that party will support pm and will be able to push through legislation, but does give more responsibility to the electorate i.e. Harold Wilson pinned success to the value of the pound which failed and had to announce this to the electorate via media.
Power of the lack of departmental duties
Thatcher can cherry pick departments
However means pm is shelved all responsibility for disputes of the committees.
E.g. Landsleys Health bill was controversial and had to start a ‘listening’ period before it came into act with reform, had little consultation with the cabinet and looked badly on Cameron’s image as he was sheleved with dispute.
Prime Ministers Office
Power has increased
Makes PM seem power house of gvmt
Blair: 200 directly to the pm
Not a policy making body
Majors executive
Inspired Core-Executive Theory
Dogged by divisions over EU
Showed collegiate doesn’t work, made him look like a product of weakness: Media
Power of Patronage
Overall: limited
Can appoint cabinet
Civil service, BBC , military
Reorganise Positions
Dismiss Ministers
Dismissing can awaken disputes, e.g. Macmillan’s night of long knives appeared weak to the public
Usually has to include ministers out of claims for inclusion
Honours committee have scrutinised the power of pm to do this
Desirability of balance in the executive: Include the opposition to stop rise of opposition
Media and parliament Backlash if appoints only friends
Authority of the Cabinet System
Large but capped
Chairs Cabinet Meetings
Determines outcomes of cabinet discussion - Iraq butler inquiry found that information had not been given to the cabinet about the weapons.
Holds bilateral meetings
Appoints cabinet committees
Restructures Government: Merging of press operations of number 10 and cabinet office.
Irresistible source of power for pm: Big Society
meetings are infrequent
Requires cabinet support on issues to make a decision
Senior ministers have authority and departmental resources and so may challenge authority.
Not involved in detailed policy making, may already be decided by the time it reaches cabinet
Party Leadership
Large but can be limited
Leader of largest party
Elected by MPs so already has support and double support of electorate
Support of party not unconditional: Blair and Thatcher
Backbench rebellions are possible
PMs like Blair and May not as much legitimacy.
Public Profile
Can work in favour or to detriment
Represents UK worldwide High profile Speaks for nation in crises PMQ's Blair and Thatcher consolidated their standing
Unpopularity can undermine authority: Iraq
Poll rating will decline after honeymoon period
Policy Making Input
Sets agenda, directs gov policy
Can get involved in any gov policy area
Political rewards of policy success
Associated with policy failure
Lacks time and detailed knowledge for all departments
Thus lacks resources of gov departments
Prime Ministers Office
Provides Independent Advice and Support
Blair: 200
Has limited resources
Other departments have their own interests , incl Civil service who have ideas about their areas and rationally pursue self interest of them
Civil Service
Can help or hinder PMs power, usually hinder
Blurred relationship with politics
- Ministers can’t make all policy decisions
- ministers decisions based on civil service advice
- Politically biased/ self interest
Reforms:
John Major’s Citizens Charter gave code of conduct reducing power.
Butlers Report on Iraq War 2004
Showed that collective decision making was outdated
New Security government had too many important roles in government
Excessive concentration at the top
Kavanagh
‘Nor can it be said that mrs Thatcher destroyed cabinet government, but she certainly bypassed it and weakened it’
Cabinet ‘Most important decisions are made’
Hennessey
‘Cabinet committees are the engine rooms of government’
Madgwick
‘The PM is always consulted, not so the cabinet’
Lawson
‘Cabinet rubber stamps decisions taken elsewhere’
Benn
‘The PM is a medieval Monarch living in number 10’
Asquith
‘The PMs role is what the PM chooses to make of it ‘
Decline of Cabinet
Collective Responsibility has faded, as each have own department, coalition allowed different views on education, resignation rare.
Usually just ratifies policy taken elsewhere
Decline since 1979, abolition of Lord Chancellor role, don’t meet very often and scale of the detailed policy shows that cabinet does not have time to implement all policy.
Next step Agencies: Created by hiving off civil service work to separate agencies
