Paper 2: Prime minister and the executive Flashcards
What is the royal prerogative?
This refers to a set of traditional powers and privileges held by the monarch in the United Kingdom. These powers are exercised by the monarch or, more commonly, by government ministers on their behalf. Examples include the power to appoint ministers, issue passports, and grant pardons. While many royal prerogatives are now exercised by elected officials, they remain a significant part of constitutional law.
What is patronage and how does this give the PM power?
Patronage refers to the power an individual may enjoy to make important appointments to public offices. Having this ability grants power because it means that those who aspire to high office tend to be loyal to the person who has the power to appoint them.
Once appointed, that loyalty remains, not least because disloyalty may end in dismissal. The prime minister enjoys patronage over hundreds of appointments, including government ministers, peers and the heads of various state bodies.
It means that the majority of MPs and peers in the prime minister’s party tend to be loyal to them. This gives the prime minister great power they exert considerable influence over their party, their MPs and Parliament.
What are the formal powers of the Prime Minister?
• The prime minister has complete power to appoint or dismiss all government ministers, whether in the Cabinet or outside the Cabinet. They also have a say in other public appointments, including the most senior civil servants.
• The prime minister has power to negotiate foreign treaties, including trade arrangements with other states or international organisations.
• While the monarch remains legal and constitutional commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the prime minister advises the monarch and effectively determines the course of action to be followed by the military.
• The prime minister conducts foreign policy and determines relationships with foreign powers. In this sense they represent the country internationally.
• The prime minister heads the Cabinet system, chooses its members, sets its agenda and determines what Cabinet committees should exist and who should sit on them.
• It is generally true that the prime minister sets the general tone of economic policy. Usually this is done alongside the chancellor of the exchequer, who is normally a very close colleague.
The prime minister has a number of formal and informal powers. Most of the formal powers derive from the royal prerogative, while the informal ones tend to derive from the other sources of prime ministerial authority. It is worth noting that while all prime ministers are granted the same powers, circumstances can affect how able they are to exercise these powers.
how prerogative powers have changed in recent years, and include examples of the exercise of prerogative power in recent years? (David Cameron)
Until the twenty-first century, it was generally accepted that the prime minister had the sole power to commit UK armed forces to action. While the prime minister might consult with their Cabinet and invite a parliamentary debate, it was acknowledged that the final decision belonged to the PM.
All this appeared to change abruptly in 2013. It was revealed that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons against civilian populations in the civil war there (Assad). In response, Prime Minister David Cameron stated his desire to intervene, using UK air power. On this occasion, however, he sought the approval of Parliament. He did not need this approval constitutionally, but he felt it was politically important to seek it. To Cameron’s surprise, the House of Commons voted against such action. He respected the decision and cancelled any proposed intervention. It appeared that centuries of the prerogative power to command the armed forces had been set aside. Parliament seemed to be taking over military policy.
Two years later, in December 2015, Cameron again asked Parliament for approval for air strikes in Syria, this time against self-styled Islamic State (ISIS). Parliament gave its approval and the strikes began. However, the fact that Cameron felt the need to consult MPs demonstrated the vulnerability of his position.
What is a recent challenge to prerogative power in the Supreme Court.
Royal prerogative is deployed by the UK government when making/unmaking treaties, but the Supreme Court held in 2017 in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the government could not use the prerogative to serve notice of termination of the UK’s membership of the EU (under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union). Instead legislative authority via an Act of Parliament was required by the Government.
-Likewise, in 2019: On 28th August Boris Johnson had ordered Parliament to be prorogued; on 24th September, the Supreme Court declared this unlawful. The Supreme Court ruled that the PM could not prorogue (suspend) Parliament.
-So, both cases demonstrated Parliament’s sovereignty and power over the PM
What is the meaning of ‘cabinet government’?
- A cabinet government is a situation where the main decision-making of government takes place in the cabinet.
What are Cabinet committees?
- DIFFERENT THAN SELECT COMMITTEES
-Cabinet committees are groups of ministers that can take collective decisions that are binding across government. They are partly designed to reduce the burden on the full cabinet by allowing smaller groups of ministers to take decisions on specific policy areas.
-The PM can create new committees as they see fit, or abolish old ones, they can also decide who sits on cabinet committees.
What is Collective Ministerial Responsibility?
1 Ministers are collectively responsible for all government policies.
2 All ministers must publicly support all government policies, even if privately they disagree with them.
3 If a minister wishes to dissent publicly from a government policy, they are expected to resign as a minister first (and return to the backbenches).
4 If a minister dissents without resigning, he or she can expect to be dismissed by the prime minister.
5 As Cabinet meetings are secret, any dissent within government is concealed.
• PMs can suspend it (though this is rare) – e.g. during the 2016 Brexit referendum, Cabinet ministers were free to campaign for either side.
- Makes the government look united, creating a stronger view for the public of their lawmakers.
What are the disadvantages and risks of CMR for individual ministers?
-Leads to a lack of power of the ministers, as they may need to put aside their own interest in fear of the pressure of resignation and the pressure of upholding cabinet collective responsibility.
Why is CMR important?
The principle of collective responsibility within government is a great support to prime ministerial power and this is perhaps its main significance. A prime minister’s authority is greatly enhanced by the fact that they will not experience open dissent from within the government.
It is also important that the government presents a united front to the outside world, including Parliament that the government knows it can rely upon the votes of all ministers in any close division in the Commons. This is known as the payroll vote and, in theory as the prime minister can rely on about 120 votes in the House of Commons before any vote, or division, is taken.
It can also be said that collective responsibility reduces the possibility of open dissent. Critics say that it gags ministers and prevents them from expressing of open dissent.
Supporters of the principle, on the other hand, say that the secrecy of the system means that ministers can express their views honestly within Cabinet, knowing that their disagreement is unlikely to be publicised.
That said, when an issue becomes serious enough, it can rapidly become public. For example, in 2022, 24 ministers, including six Cabinet ministers, resigned because they felt they could no longer support then prime minister Boris Johnson, contributing to his resignation.
What is an example of an exception to CMR? (coalition)
• The first occurred during the coalition in 2010-15. Clearly it would have been impossible for ministers from two quite different parties Liberal Democrats - Conservative and to agree on every policy. Nobody would have believed them had they made such a claim.
A special arrangement was therefore made. The coalition arrived at a Coalition Agreement, which included all the policies the two party leaderships decided should be common to both sets of ministers.
Collective responsibility applied to the Coalition Agreement, but some areas of policy were not included. For example, the renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine missile system was excluded. Coalition ministers were allowed to disagree publicly on this issue. The same exception was applied to the question of intervention in the Syrian civil war.
What is an example of exceptions for CMR? (EU ref)
The second suspension of collective responsibility became necessary when it was decided to hold a referendum on UK membership of the EU in June 2016.
During the campaign, Conservative ministers were free to express views counter to the official government position that the UK should remain in the EU.
Several Cabinet ministers, including former justice secretary Michael Gove, and former leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling, openly campaigned against the official government line. A similar arrangement had been made the last time there was a referendum on UK membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1975.
What is an example of exceptions to CMR (May)?
The third reason, though not an official suspension, was seen between 2017 and 2019, when Theresa May failed to exert collective responsibility as various Cabinet ministers became openly critical of her Brexit deal.
This was more out of necessity than any real policy, as May was trying to find a consensus between two deeply divided sides and forcing any of the key Cabinet ministers to resign, despite their open hostility to her deal, may have led to a loss of support and an even earlier end to her premiership.
Although more than 50 ministers in total would resign in this period, it is noticeable how publicly key Cabinet ministers criticised official policy without being forced to resign. This suggests that the doctrine depends more on the strength and authority of the prime minister than on any hard and fast rule.
Why is CMR a negative aspect of the UK political system?
- It puts too much power into the hands of the prime minister.
• It means that ministers cannot be openly honest about their views on policies. This may stifle debate within government.
• Resignations under the doctrine are dramatic events that may seriously undermine government.
Why is CMR a positive aspect of the UK political system?
• It creates a government that is united, strong and decisive,
• The public, Parliament and the media are presented with a clear, single version of government policy.
• Though ministers cannot dissent publicly, the confidentiality of the Cabinet means that ministers can engage in frank discussions in private.
The key to evaluation for this debate is the importance it holds for the political system as a whole, meaning you must decide whether having a publicly unified government is a greater positive for the UK political system than the opportunity for open and public debate among the senior members of government.
What was the mass ministerial resignation under Johnson? (July 2022)
- In early July 2022, 62 of the UK’s 179 government ministers, parliamentary private secretaries and other junior ministers resigned en masse.
- Partygate had hugely damaged Johnson’s reputation, but it was the Chris Pincher scandal that was the final straw.
On Jul 5th , both Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid, respectively Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for health and social care, resigned almost simultaneously.
How did Suella Braverman breach CMR?
-Braverman’s exit may be over another technical breach of the ministerial code: for publishing an article without taking in No.10’s edits (and probably not warning them that she was up for publishing and then being damned).
-This goes against CMR as no 10 gave edits, and braverman ignored them.
-It may be over the content of that article, deliberately aimed at raising the temperature ahead of a difficult weekend, undermining a key constitutional convention about the operational independence of the police (more harsh on white protestors than pro-Palestine protestors) putting the government in direct confrontation with the UK’s most senior police officer.
What is IMR?
ministers are collectively responsible for government policies. However, each minister is also individually responsible for matters that affect the department separately. Ministers are also individually responsible for their own performance as a minister and their conduct as an individual. The doctrine individual ministerial responsibility used to be a significant feature of governing the UK, but in some ways in recent years it has declined in importance.
1 Ministers must be prepared to be accountable to Parliament for the policies an decisions made by their department. This means answering questions in the House, facing interrogation by select committees and justifying their actions i debate.
2 If a minister makes a serious error of judgement, concerning either personal o political matters, they should be required to resign.
3 If a serious error is made by the minister’s department, whether or not the minister was involved in the cause of the error, the minister is honor-bound to resign.
4 If the conduct of a minister falls below the standards required of someone in public office, particularly if they break the ministerial code of conduct, they should leave office and may face dismissal by the prime minister. As demonstrated by Boris Johnson in 2022, this code is also expected to apply to the prime minister. but this is more difficult to enforce.
What is the Ministerial Code?
• The Ministerial Code sets out the standards of conduct expected of ministers and how they discharge their duties.
For example: It states that “holders of public office should be truthful” and that: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”
• Since 2006, UK government ministerial code breaches have been investigated through an independent adviser on ministerial interests or by the cabinet secretary, but there is no requirement to follow any particular process. It is not legally binding - it is ultimately up to the Prime Minister to decide how to interpret and enforce it. Typically it is amended with each new PM.
• By convention, it’s expected that breaking the code leads to dismissal.
How does the Priti Patel case study show IMR being enforced?
In November 2017 reports emerged that the then international development secretary, Priti Patel, had arranged and attended meetings in August 2017 with Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, without approval or authorisation from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
This was a breach of the ministerial code of conduct as any meeting between an official representative of the UK executive and a foreign government has to be authorised by the FCO in order to ensure consistency and full knowledge of the diplomatic situation.
After an initial apology to Prime Minister May, Patel was allowed to stay in post, but when details of two other similar meetings between her and Israeli officials in September 2017 emerged, she was recalled from a meeting in Uganda and, after a 45-minute meeting with the prime minister, offered her resignation.
How does the Amber Rudd case study show IMR being enforced?
Between 1948 and 1973, people born as ‘subjects of the British Empire’ were given British citizenship and the right to live and work in the UK, leading to half a million people travelling to and settling in the UK as part of the Windrush generation. While restrictions were imposed after 1973, all those who had settled in the UK before then were granted full British citizenship, as were their children.
However, in 2017 a scandal emerged that showed that in a bid to impose tougher immigration targets and tackle illegal immigration, the Home Office had been responsible for many of the Windrush generation being treated as illegal immigrants, with benefits and services being cancelled, some being detained, others losing their jobs and being denied re-entry into the UK, and at least 83 being wrongly deported, partly as a result of a wider target to deport 10 per cent of illegal immigrants.
When challenged about this by the Home Affairs select committee in March 2018, the then home secretary, Amber Rudd, stated that she was not aware of any such targets existing. However, a letter soon emerged proving that she was fully aware of the 10 per cent target. In her resignation letter, Rudd stated that she had unintentionally misled Parliament and was resigning for that reason.
How does the Sajid Javid Case study show IMR being enforced?
The relationship between the prime minister (working from 10 Downing Street) and the chancellor (working from 11 Downing Street) is perhaps the most important political relationship in the UK. Although the chancellor is appointed by the prime minister, their position in charge of the Treasury means they have a rival power base and can, at times, be seen to exercise almost as much power and control over government policy because they are the one who determines the spending and taxation that impact on all other departments.
In many instances, the chancellor has been almost autonomous in their power. This was most clearly shown during the Brown and Blair years of government, and led to problems and rivalries that would eventually undermine Blair’s leadership.
A similar dynamic was beginning to emerge in 2020 between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his chancellor, Sajid Javid, with Javid regularly clashing with Johnson’s special adviser, Dominic Cummings. In February 2020, Johnson, acting on the recommendation of Cummings, told Javid to replace all his advisers with people chosen by Johnson and Cummings, or to leave his post. Javid chose to resign, stating in his resignation letter that he ‘was unable to accept those conditions and I do not believe any self-respecting minister would accept those conditions.’
How has the principle of IMR eroded in recent years?
The first principle. that ministers must offer themselves to be accountable to parliament, certainly operates successfully and is a key principle of UK government.
The second and third principles, however, have largely fallen into disuse. There is no specific way in which Parliament can remove an individual minister. Parliament and its select committees can criticise a minister and call for their resignation, but whether or not they go is entirely in the hands of the prime minister.
There was a time when ministers resigned as a matter of principle when a serious mistake was made, but those days have largely passed, excepting Amber Rudd (see the case study above). In her resignation letter, Rudd said she took ‘full responsibility’ for the fact she was not aware of ‘information provided to [her] office which makes mention of targets’. This was a rare event indeed. Before and since, many ministers have experienced widespread criticism and have apologised for errors made, but have neither resigned nor been dismissed.
This erosion of the principle does not, however, extend to the fourth type of responsibility, that which concerns personal conduct. Here, when ministers have fallen short of public standards, they have been quick to resign or been required to resign by the prime minister.
