Essay plan - Evaluate the view that the UK has seen a return to cabinet government in recent years

Question 1

Introduction: definiton

Answer 1

Cabinet government is a government style in which members of the cabinet announce key policies, there are no cabinet minister resignations, there is an ideological range within the cabinet, and there is a high frequency of cabinet defintions.

Question 2

Introduction: weaker points - supporting the statement

Answer 2

Weaker arguments suggest:
- prime minister relies on the cabinet during periods of minority government, coalition government or party factionalism
- these are extreme circumstances, and usually the only circumstances in which recent prime ministers have listened to their cabinet

Question 3

Introduction: stronger points - against the statement

Answer 3

Stronger arguments suggest:
- has been a rise in the use of prerogative powers
- increased reliance on special advisers
- has been abandonment of full cabinet meetings

• shift from cabinet style government and towards a more prime-ministerial era

Question 4

Full introduction (in bullet points)

Answer 4

-Cabinet government is a government style in which members of the cabinet announce key policies, there are no cabinet minister resignations, there is an ideological range within the cabinet, and a high frequency of cabinet meetings
-Although some weaker arguments suggest that the prime minister relies of the cabinet during periods of minority government, coalition government or party factionalism, these are extreme circumstances, and usually the only ones in which prime ministers have listened to their cabinet
-Instead, stronger arguments suggest that there has been a rise in spatial leadership, reliance on special advisers and abandonment of full cabinet meetings, which have led to a shift from cabinet style government, towards a more prime-ministerial era

Question 5

Point 1 - A01 counter argument (supporting the statement) - minority government

Answer 5

The most significant argument which supports this statement suggests that in recent years, when Prime Ministers have lost their majority or confidence in their leadership, they rely on the cabinet.

Question 6

Point 1 - A02 counter argument (supporting the statement) - minority government

Answer 6

-Example : Theresa May initially had a majority of 17 between 2015 and 2017, but in the 2017 election she lost this majority and had to form a minority government
-She had initially relied on SpAds (eg, Fiona Hill - chief of staff)
-As the country had now lost confidence in her leadership, she began to heavily rely on her cabinet
-Eg, in October 2016 she suspended collective ministerial responsibility so that everyone in the cabinet could voice their opinion over the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport, before it was put to vote in the Commons
- Showed that when PMs lose support, they rely on their Cabinet more as this increases the legitimacy of their decisions (as all cabinet members are also elected MPs)

Question 7

Point 1 - A03 counter argument (supporting the statement) - minority government

Answer 7

However, this is the weaker argument
- Suggests that initially all prime ministers lead with a prime-ministerial or presidential style, relying on SpAds and distancing themselves from their cabinet
- But, actually, as described by the ‘elastic theory’, they will stretch their power to the furthest extent before they bounce back to relying on the cabinet.

Question 8

Point 1 - A01 stronger argument (against the statement) - smaller/fewer cabinet meetings

Answer 8

The most significant argument against this statement suggests that in recent years, many prime ministers have made decisions with a select few ministers, rather than enlisting the input of their whole cabinet.

Question 9

Point 1 - A02 stronger argument (against the statement) - smaller/fewer cabinet meetings

Answer 9

Example:
- Harold Wilson’s ‘Kitchen Cabinet’, where he met with a select few ministers (those who were loyal to him?)
- This meant most important decisions were already made before cabinet meetings, and just presented to remaining ministers to ‘rubber stamp’
- Barbara Castle, a prominent member of Wilson’s cabinet, vented her frustration that the cabinet was not included
- Shows how Wilson was distancing himself, and leading a more prime-ministerial government
- This was because he chose what decisions were made where, rather than acting as ‘primer inter pares’ (first among equals) with the rest of the cabinet members
- More examples:
- Tony Blair’s ‘sofa’ meetings
- Bi-lateral meetings held by almost every PM
- Show how PM is controlling the agenda, and choosing who makes what decisions rather than allowing whole cabinet to collaborate
- Prime-ministerial government

Question 10

Point 1 - A03 stronger argument (against the statement) - smaller/fewer cabinet meetings

Answer 10

• This is the stronger argument
• Shows how prime ministers will move away from the whole cabinet and only make decisions with those who will support them and enhance their leadership

Question 11

Point 2 - A01 weaker argument (supporting the statement) - preventing party factionalism

Answer 11

Another significant argument which supports the statement suggests that many Prime Ministers such as Major and Callaghan have used cabinet government as a tool to prevent a fracture within their party.

Question 12

Point 2 - A02 weaker argument (supporting the statement) - preventing party factionalism

Answer 12

• Example:
• James Callaghan’s administration was divided between left and right, therefore he worked hard to achieve consensus over controversial issues like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan in 1976, so that his government didn’t fracture
• Using the cabinet prevents fracture, as ministers can debate and reach consensus in the safe environment, rather than publicly resenting the strong leadership of the prime minister
• Also, having a balance of factions within the cabinet prevents fracture of the party, as everyone gets a say in policy and are bound by CMR so will publicly agree with whatever the PM says
• “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in” (Lyndon B Johnson)
• Cabinet leads debate, and the prime minister is ‘first among equals’, just being the public figurehead for the joint decisions of the cabinet

Question 13

Point 2 - A03 weaker argument (supporting the statement) - preventing party factionalism

Answer 13

However this is the weaker argument
- Suggests that the PM will always ensure all factions are included and allow debate within the cabinet over all policies
- Actually, the PM will often assume that their strong leadership and voice will override the other factions of the party, and just ignore them, rather than striving for cabinet inclusion and consensus.

Question 14

Point 2 - A01 stronger argument (against the statement) - use of SpAds

Answer 14

Another significant argument against the statement suggests that in recent years, there has been an increase in the use of Special Advisers (SpAds) to advise the prime minister on policy rather than the prime minister seeking help from their cabinet.

Question 15

Point 2 - A02 stronger argument (against the statement) - use of SpAds

Answer 15

• SpAds can be policy experts, recruited for their expertise in a particular area, or media advisers who present their minister’s views and influence how policy is communicated to the public.
• Their numbers have risen dramatically in the last 30 years, with 84 under Blair, 74 under Brown, and more than 100 in the coalition
• As of Dec 2019, there were 109 SpAds in government
• Example:
• Tony Blair was a particular fan of using them → the cabinet only took one decision during Blair’s first 8 months in office
• Instead, he relied on SpAds such as Alistair Campbell to help him make decisions and present his policies
• Shows a shift away from cabinet government and towards a more presidential style government, where prime ministers have chiefs of staff, and teams of people they personally hire to advise them
• Also, although cabinet ministers can hire their own SpAds, the prime minister must approve all appointments, which shows that the prime minister still has ultimate power
• PM following their own mandate rather than abiding by principle of ‘primer inter pares’

Question 16

Point 2 - A03 stronger argument (against the statement) - use of SpAds

Answer 16

• This is the stronger argument
• Suggests that in recent years, PMs have shifted away from relying on knowledge and research of elected cabinet ministers, instead relying on expert advisers in specific fields (more presidential style government)

Question 17

Point 3 - A01 weaker argument (supporting the statement) - coalition governments

Answer 17

One other significant argument which supports the statement suggests that due to the terms of the coalition government, Cameron had to ensure cabinet consensus on key decisions and policies.

Question 18

Point 3 - A02 weaker argument (supporting the statement) - coalition governments

Answer 18

• 2010 Tory-Lib Dem cabinet was made up of of 16 Conservative and 5 Lib Dem ministers
• This meant Cameron could not just do what he wanted and create a personal mandate, instead he had to listen to, include and balance all the views of the cabinet
• Example:
• In 2010, Cameron had to agree to holding an AV referendum as part of the coalition agreement
• He led the most cabinet-style government in recent years, where members from both parties collaborated on policies
• Eg, both parties agreed to bring in shared parental leave policy, to allow maternity leave to be split between the mother an father

Question 19

Point 3 - A03 weaker argument (supporting the statement) - coalition governments

Answer 19

However this is the weaker argument
- As we have only had one proper coalition government in recent years
- Is an exception, Cameron was forced to include cabinet even though in some circumstances we saw he would rather have not

Question 20

Point 3 - A01 stronger argument (against the statement) - prerogative powers

Answer 20

One other significant argument against the statement suggests that the prime minister has prerogative powers, which have been used many times in recent years, allowing them to take several important decisions without consulting the cabinet.

Question 21

Point 3 - A02 stronger argument (against the statement) - prerogative powers

Answer 21

• Prime minister has the power to dissolve Parliament, appoint people to and fire people from the cabinet, and to take military action
• Example:
• On the advice of the exaggerated Iraq Dossier, and consulting SpAds rather than the Cabinet or even Parliament, in 2003 Blair decided to join the US’s invasion of Iraq
• He sidelined the cabinet, and kept them in the dark during his decision making process
• Shows how prerogative powers allow prime ministers to make key decisions themselves, as if they were a US president following a personal mandate
• Shift away from cabinet government, as shows that the Prime minister is often willing to drop the assistance of the cabinet the minute a very important decision must be made
• Blair could have suspended CMR and given the Cabinet a chance to campaign for their view then vote in the cabinet → could have led to a less devastating outcome

Question 22

Point 3 - A03 stronger argument (against the statement) - prerogative powers

Answer 22

• This is the stronger argument
• Suggests that in recent years, PMs have taken super important decisions themselves rather than taking advice of cabinet, which often would have led to better result

Question 23

Conclusion

Answer 23

In conclusion:
- View in statement is not very convincing
- As each recent prime minister has examples of not listening to their cabinet
- Increase in use of prerogative powers, smaller meetings and special advisers show less reliance on cabinet
- Although during coalition, minority and factionalised governments the cabinet will be utilised more fully, this is merely a survival method of the PM, not their ideal circumstance