PM and the executive Flashcards
Collective cabinet now only exists in the name only
- Collective ministerial responsibility is the convention that ministers must support all decisions of the government in public. It means that they are responsible as a group to parliament and thus to the people, and that discussions in Cabinet should be confidential. I The practice is designed to maintain the unity of the government in face of attacks by the opposition. While ministers are free to argue their case with each other in private, once a decision has been reached it is binding on them all. If a minister cannot accept such a decision, in theory they should resign. One of the best-known examples of such a resignation in recent times was in 2003 of Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons, in opposition to the Blair government’s decision to go to war with Iraq. He stated that he could not ‘accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support’.
- Ian Duncan Smith resigned in 2016 as work and pensions secretary in David Cameron’s
government, stating that he could not accept cuts to disability benefits, on which the Treasury was insisting. He objected to the fact that, at the same time, Chancellor George Osborne had made other changes in his budget to benefit higher earners. However Duncan Smith’s decision was not based on his reaction to a single budget, but was the culmination of growing resentment. In his opinion Osborne was too inclined to make cuts for narrow political reasons rather than in the national economic interest. Duncan Smith also disliked the Treasury’s demand that the Department of Work and Pensions should take responsibility publicly for what he regarded as unfair measures. Personality differences played a part. It was widely believed that Osborne considered Duncan Smith to be too intellectually limited to take responsibility for complex government policies. Duncan Smith’s desire to see Britain leave the European Union, which had recently brought him into conflict with Cameron and Osborne, may also have played a part in causing the clash. - Prime ministers can take a flexible approach to collective responsibility, such as overlooking media coverage which suggests there are ministerial disagreements or leaks of information from government. However, in both cases it depends on the severity of the breach and the context in which it has occurred. The strength of the prime minister’s own position can influence his or her willingness to enforce collective responsibility.
For example, between 2016 and 2018, the then foreign secretary, Boris Johnson wrote articles and participated in newspaper interviews in which he set out positions that were not government policy. But Theresa May, the prime minister at the time, decided not to discipline him for these transgressions.
against
1.
ministerial responsbility
Ministerial Responsibility”
For:
Does apply as ministers follow and support govt policy, otherwise they will have to leave cabinet
Johnson chose his cabinet with loyal ministers who will support his Brexit plan
Ministers who breach the ministerial code will have to resign
Eg Priti Patel spoke with Israeli officials without approval or authorisation. She stayed in post nevertheless, but was found out to have 2 more meetings and eventually resigned
Priti Patel also broke the code again under Johnson’s cabinet. She was repeatedly shouting and bullying other ministers during meetings. Alex Allan as a result resigned as he refused to work with her
Ministers resign for example David Wolfsom resigned as Justice Secretary in April 2022 due to party gate scandals
Against:
Ministers barely resign after breaching ministerial code
Eg May in 2011 as she was Home Secretary. Allowed foreign criminals into the UK
Eg Patel in 2020 after bullying ministers in meetings. Johnson claimed that Patel is not a bully and Sir Alex Allan as a result resigned
Media pressure has more of an influence. Eg Amber Rudd in 2018 due to Windrush Scandal and Matt Hancock as health secretary under Johnson
Ministers do not resign after breaking laws for example Rishi Sunak and Johnson did not resign after receiving fines for breaking lockdown rules
cabinet plays an insignificant role
This continued under Blair who marginalised his cabinet to mere unimportance in 30-minute meetings, and also attempted to copy presidential behaviour in growing the prime minister’s personal office. Blair preferred to resolve big policy decisions with key ministers like the Chancellor and with his 26 special advisors. Controversial decisions, such as privatising the Bank of England, were not made by his cabinet, in fact they were told after it was announced to the press. PM can choose their own cabinet
Blair extended his control over the cabinet, reducing the time he met and discussed policy with them. Instead, he relied more on hand-picked special advisers and informal meetings with key colleagues to formulate policy (dubbed ‘sofa government’). This allowed him to make decisions effectively bypassing the cabinet, increasing his control.
Blair appointed 162 labour peers after taking office in 1997
Blair, Thatcher and Cameron all used committees more than cabinet, undermining the role of Cabinet
Johnson in 2019 appointing close friends and loyal people, even if they are not specialists in that field
Eg Matt Hancock as Health Secretary and Priti Patel as Home Secretary
This made policy making easy, he had “yes-men”
Matt Hancock caught breaking social distancing rules despite being Health Secretary
Boris Johnson resisted from removing him from the Cabinet
However, after a lot of media pressure, Hancock resigned
Sunak gave Cameron a peerage, which led him to be the Foreign Secretary
Despite Hancock resigning, Johnson can appoint someone else who is his friend
EVALUATION: Geoffrey Howe was Thatcher’s longest serving cabinet minister who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Deputy PM, he resigned in 1990 which led to Thatcher’s downfall and resignation three weeks laterThatcher dominated her cabinet through force and ruthlessness removing or marginalising her opponents. It led to Geoffrey having a rebellion against her and this led to her downfall, she was considered one of the most presidential prime ministers ever.
Rebuttal
Popular PMs dominate the cabinet, Thatcher accepted resignations instead of compromising. Some PMs prefer to control the cabinet. Johnson after 2019 had the power to appoint ministers. Johnson appointed Dominic Cummings when he worked during the leave campaign as his advisors in 2019. Led to multiple issues in cabinet, 2019 Cummings dismissed Sonia khan one of the treasury special advisers without the knowledge or permission of chancellor of the exquecher Sajid Javid, this led to Javids resignations.
individual responsibility
AGREE:
Gavin Williamson,
In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and the closure of schools in March 2019, A Level and GCSE examinations were cancelled. The Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, tasked his civil servants working in the Department of Education and the government’s exam regulator Ofqual with devising a system to award grades to candidates based on a concept of ‘Centre-Assessed Grades’ that would be a robust and fair system to make awarded grades comparable to other years.. However, the grades awarded met with public outcry over the unfairness of how they were awarded and many pupils were seen to be treated unfairly. The minister blamed the algorithm that had been devised by Ofqual for being overly restrictive and replaced the system created by awarding grades based on original teacher-based estimates. Under the ministerial code, it would have been expected that the minister responsible, Gavin Williamson, should have taken responsibility and resigned from his position. However, he refused to resign and was supported by the Prime Minister and it was in fact the Head of Ofqual that resigned while the Education Secretary continued in post.
Chris Grayling,
In 2018 the railway companies introduced a series of new timetables to make the railway network more efficient and assured the Transport Secretary at the time, Chris Grayling, that there would be no major disruption. Chris Grayling allowed the reforms, but the changes led to chaos and many passengers being stranded or unable to travel to work while services were heavily disrupted for months. There was a clear lack of leadership by the Department of Transport. The failures to respond to the crisis were largely placed on the Secretary of State and under ministerial responsibility, it would have been expected for him to resign. Although he apologised for the chaos and acknowledged there had been problems, Chris Grayling said that his mistake was in taking the initial report by the railways at face value and refused to resign. He continued as Transport Secretary until July 2019 and only left for the backbenches when Theresa May stepped down as Prime Minister.
Priti Patel
In March 2020 Sir Philip Rutnam, the most senior civil servant working in the Home Office, resigned in protest of what he claimed was bullying by the then Home Secretary Priti Patel, claiming that she had created a culture of fear. In a statement issued to the BBC, Sir Philip claimed that Priti Patel had been advised early on not to shout and swear at staff and that she must treat members of the Civil Service with respect. This appeared to be a clear breach of the ministerial code of conduct with set out expected standards of behaviour for all ministers whilst in office, including ‘consideration and respect’ for civil servants and other colleagues. Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked Sir Alex Allan, the Prime Minister’s independent advisor on the ministerial code (a civil service position) to investigate the allegations made against Priti Patel. In his report issued in November 2020, Sir Alex found that Priti Patel had ‘not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect’ and cited examples of swearing and shouting at staff and that ‘her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals’. Although this appeared to be a clear case of a breach of individual ministerial responsibility that would traditionally have seen a minister resign or be removed, Priti Patel issued an apology but claimed she was not aware of the impact of her behaviour and that she had not been supported by the staff at the time. The Prime Minister supported her saying that he did not believe she was a bully and that there were mitigating circumstances
and said he did not believe she needed to resign. In protest at the decision, Sir Alex Allan resigned claiming he could no longer work as the prime minister’s independent advisor on the code.
The executive has increasingly limited power to dictate events and policy
Coalition of 2010/ Theresa May 2017
Coalition of 2010 saw Cameron and Clegg in office
Cameron seen as the superior PM as Conservatives had the most seats yet they did not have a majority
Clegg promised to scrap tuition fees but was not able to, tuition fees were actually raised to £9000
Lib Dems had 56 seats so were undermined
Cameron answering most questions during PMQs
Therese May minority govt, was able to stay in office despite not having a majority
More MPs against May, yet she remained as PM
However, May can be seen as a weak PM as she was pushed around cabinet and had a larger opposition
May failed to pass Brexit on three several occasions which shows her weakness as not having a minority meant there was more opposition. Also, many Tories rebelled against her Brexit policy. This led to her resignation. Thatcher lost control , Thatcher introduced the poll tax(a council tax), many conservatives advised against her introducing the tax as they feared it would be very unpopular. Thatcher ignored and went on and pressed ahead with the policy and she faced a large protest. As a result her popularity declined and her party lost faith in her to deliver electoral success, she then resigned as she failed to get support for a leader.
Patronage Powers
PM can choose their own cabinet
Blair appointed 162 labour peers after taking office in 1997
Blair, Thatcher and Cameron all used committees more than cabinet, undermining the role of Cabinet
Johnson in 2019 appointing close friends and loyal people, even if they are not specialists in that field
Eg Matt Hancock as Health Secretary and Priti Patel as Home Secretary
This made policy making easy, he had “yes-men”
Matt Hancock caught breaking social distancing rules despite being Health Secretary
Boris Johnson resisted from removing him from the Cabinet
However, after a lot of media pressure, Hancock resigned
Sunak gave Cameron a peerage, which led him to be the Foreign Secretary
Despite Hancock resigning, Johnson can appoint someone else who is his friend
EVALUATION: Geoffrey Howe was Thatcher’s longest serving cabinet minister who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Deputy PM, he resigned in 1990 which led to Thatcher’s downfall and resignation three weeks later
Powers have decreased
Partygate
Johnson caught having a party in 10 Downing Street
Breaching his own lockdown rules, effectively Johnson breaking the law
Gave Johnson a humiliating image on the media
As a result, Johnson cabinet resigning as they had lost support
Decreases power of PM as they had broken their own rules and cabinet lost support, Johnson eventually resigning
Liz Truss in office for over a month
Her mini-budget increased inflation to 10.4%, worsening cost of living
She sacked Kwasi Kwarteng and her cabinet were resigning
Supreme Court can thwart a PM’s plan eg the SC stopped Johnson’s prerogative powers of closing Parliament for 6 weeks
PMQs and parliamentary rebellions can limit the PMs power
Modern PMs are presidential all in but name
1.The UK has an uncodified constitution that, unlike a codified constitution, does not pre-define prime ministerial powers, which in turn give prime ministers the ability to make what they want out of their role. This was exploited under Thatcher, who with an autocratic style of leadership, totally dominated her cabinet, especially in the crucial area of economic policy. This continued under Blair who marginalised his cabinet to mere unimportance in 30-minute meetings, and also attempted to copy presidential behaviour in growing the prime minister’s personal office. Blair preferred to resolve big policy decisions with key ministers like the Chancellor and with his 26 special advisors. Controversial decisions, such as privatising the Bank of England, were not made by his cabinet, in fact they were told after it was announced to the press. Not only does this clearly highlight a shift to unilateral decision making rather than collective cabinet government, - separating the prime minister from the rest of government. This directly correlates with the US system of government which has a greater emphasis on presidential aides and reduces the role of the cabinet as seen by the fact that President Bush only met his Cabinet twice a year to merely update them on developments. This trend has only continued with the “Downing Street machine” growing ever more important in recent years. Johnson’s special adviser Cummings had been instrumental to the Covid-19 response, often overriding elected ministers and making key decisions. Such reliance on Cummings was exposed by Johnson’s unwillingness to sack him following a breach of the Covid rules. Therefore, ongoing development of the prime minister’s office at the cost the cabinet suggests the prime minister is in fact not first among equals and is thus a president who governs with a close-knit circle of their advisors and not collectively with their cabinet.
- However, cabinet government still remains a vital part of the core executive .. Unlike the relatively united parties and economic success under Thatcher and Blair, Prime Ministers such as Major and May inherited a vastly divided party, which in turn meant that they were heavily reliant on the cabinet to govern. For example, John Major, in contrast to Blair who had 30-minute cabinet meetings, had to have an inclusive cabinet including rivals from one-nation to the new right in his cabinet. His cabinet meetings often lasted many hours and some discussions would go on for days. This has also been the case for recent prime ministers who inherit deeply factionalised parties such as May, as she recalled ex-cabinet ministers she had initially sacked, in order to keep the divides of the party represented in the cabinet. Such instability and dependency on cabinet demonstrates that the UK prime minister is anything but presidential, as their ability to govern without cabinet is determined by the unity of their party and their economic competence.Nonetheless, even perceived “presidential” prime ministers such as Thatcher and Blair eventually became increasingly reliant on their cabinet. For instance, the unpopular poll tax by Thatcher led to her party and her cabinet withdrawing support as she became a potential liability for their future electoral success, which in turn caused her forced resignation. Similar occurrences have been seen under Blair. Eventually even Blair lost support from cabinet ministers, as his unpopular decision on the Iraq war made him more unpopular in the country.
3.The UK has an uncodified constitution that fuses the power of parliament which determines the applicable power of the prime minister, in turn meaning the power of the prime minister is continuously ebbing and flowing depending on their parliamentary majority. In contrast to a presidential system where the president is directly elected by the people, the UK under a parliamentary system has the prime minister elected alongside parliament creating a fusion of power- the executive sits in the legislature. Naturally this means that the power a prime minister yields immensely depends on the parliamentary majority they achieve. Thatcher and Blair could only afford to behave in a “presidential” manner given the elective dictatorship and widespread personal mandate that their landslide majorities allowed. The vast power and domination of Parliament, being a mere “rubber stamp”, that Blair enjoyed in parliament is closer to an authoritarian control over government rather than apresidential system. Further, for prime ministers who fail to obtain such a landslide or even secure majority they are even further away from a president. For example, May following the 2017 general election had a confidence-and-supply agreement after she failed to return a single party majority. Consequently, she had a deeply unstable prime ministerial position, and her leadership was constantly challenged by her party until her forced resignation in 2019. Despite this, when May attempted to behave like a head of state in triggering article 50, she was quickly forced to backtrack and get parliament’s consent. This has also been seen with Johnson who was forced to recall parliament following an unlawful prorogation of parliament. All this shows beyond reasonable doubt that no matter how much a prime minister may try to seem presidential in style, constitutionally they remain at the mercy of their majority in parliament. Repeated attempts to translate a presidential style into presidential behaviour fails to materialise, and even prime ministers such as Thatcher who had landslide majorities lacked absolute power as seen by the fateful decision of the poll tax.
EVALUATE THE VIEW THAT THE CONVENTIONS OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY NO LONGER ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE ACTIONS OF MINITERS
Conventions are weak in accounting the actions of ministers as not legally binding, can be easily ignored by ministers or prime ministers.
U.K.’s codified constitution means that conventions are ignored and other factors play greater role in determining whether or not ministers resign or are reschuffled e.g. Ian Duncan Smith resigned after cuts the disability benefit in the budget - resignation unlikely to do with single budget but instead because of a culmination of growing resentment.
He clashed with David Cameron and Osborne due to desire to see Britain leave EU - played a great role in his resignation then a single budget and the notion of collective responsibility.
After resignation, no longer bound by ‘collective miniterial responsibility’ and could openly criticise cameron as backbencher.
BUT, ministers do support gov policy and follow convention of collective responsibility.
Expectation that ministers Will support government policy from the media, public and politicians or can expect to be jauced.
Examples of ministers resigning before voting and speaking out against government policy - 2003, Kobin Loove resigned from gov and gave impassioned speech against Iraq war.
Recently, secretary Boris Johnson and brexit secretary David Doris resigned in July 2018 after strong disagreement on Mays brexit plan - by resigning broke from convention of collective responsibility - e.g. ministers resigning for breaking collective responsibility show that PMs take this convention seriously and expect ministers to abide by it show United gov.
2
Convention is adequate in holding ministers to account as ministers rarely resign under convention of individual responsibility.
Esp prevalent over policy mutants or mistaws of officials, which damages process of democracy in UK.
May managed to stop scandal when she was Home Secretary (2011) as head of UK border forces, Brodie Clum resigning after border controls relaxed without her agreement - Clum accused May of making her political scapegoat and reached out of court settlement with home office.
David Blundert and Porter Mandleson resigned from Blair cabinet - both promoted by Blair again.
Lack of examples of ministers resigning is clear evidence that to large extent, convention has direct impact on actions of ministers in office and they no longer feel ‘honour bound’ to resign over errors.
BUT, 13 examples of ministers resigning under individual ministerial convention.
Estelle Morris resigned as education secretary in 2002 due to problems associated with curriculum changes and a level reforms - felt she was not up to par > Morris honoured own resignation of education if targets were missed.
Conventions also likely to hold ministers for their personal misconduct, this minor but still important for elected representatives to be held accountable for their behaviour e.g. Priti Patel and Michael Fallon resigned from May’s gov after personal conduct fell short from ministers expectations.
Conventions good way of accounting for personal actions of ministers, as argued, it’s rare that individual minister responsibility holds ministers to account for performance of their actual dept.
3
Level of support or lack of support from the PM, coupled with media pressure, is often key factor and determines fate of minister enrolled > Better guide to explaining actions of ministers than the application of other conventions e.g. 2006 Charles Clance faced political pressure after failing to account for movements of 1000+ foreign prisoners - wanted to ‘sort this out’ and Blair as PM supported him, he lost support from PM after scandal stayed in news and poor results for Lab party in local elections > Blair sacked him in reshuffle, strongly demonstrates the facts that interpretation of ministerial responsibility often depend on circumstance of time and support from PM.
Reinforced by pushing out of Amber Rudd (2018) after media pressure forced her to resign after windrush scandal.
BUT, outbreak in media backs importance of conventions as shows they remain important in account for actions of ministers.
“Evaluate the view that recent Prime Ministers are Presidents in all but name”
For:
Commander-in-chief, for example Rishi Sunak used airstrikes on Yemen without any approval/consent from the Commons
Johnson wanted to prorogue Parliament for 6 weeks to get Brexit through. EVALUATION: The UK Supreme Court did not allow this
Cabinet reshuffles: powers of patronage for example, Sunak made Cameron a Lord and appointed him as Foreign Secretary, kicked out Suella Braverman and made James Cleverly the Home Secretary. The PM can effectively appoint who they want as their cabinet ministers and dominate their party. EVALUATION: If a PM is losing support, their cabinet can resign to undermine their power. For example, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss
Against:
Theresa May minority government in 2017, failed to pass Brexit three times eventually leading to her resignation
Boris Johnson lost the support of his cabinet after party gate scandal, eg Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman resigning
Power by the Lords, for example the government were defeated by the Lords 128 times in 2021-22 and were defeated 14 times in one day on the 17 Jan 2022
Cameron made sure to be approved by Commons to airstrike Syria in 2015- this shows that Cameron had the consensus of the Commons, hindering his power as Commander-in chief
Liz Truss gone after 44 days
Evaluate the view that the executive has increasingly limited powers to dictate events and policy.” You must use at least one pre 1997 and post 1997 PM in your response
Paragraph 1:
Intervention and scrutiny of the HoL
Can delay bills for up to one year
Eg, HoL stopped a cut of £30 a week in benefits for those undeemed to work
Shows that executive has limited powers as the HoL prevented the cut and required the govt to amend the bill
Eg during the years 2021-22, the government were defeated 128 times
Eg Jan 17 2022, the govt were defeated 14 times in one day
Eg Clause 11 of the stop and search bill stated that police could stop and search without any suspicion, and this led to the HoL intervening and this was removed
EVALUATION: HoL are limited due to the Salisbury Convention
BUT the convention can be bypassed if the government is a minority or a coalition eg 2010 and 2017
Paragraph 2:
Executive has limited powers to dictate events when it comes to weak govts
Eg 2017 minority government and 2010 coalition
Eg May’s government was half ‘leave’ and half ‘remain’ which made it hard to pass legislation and ultimately Brexit
May failed to deliver Brexit three times which eventually led to her resignation
Cameron had to get the consensus of Parliament to bomb Syria
Cameron was limited as he has the powers of Commander-in-chief yet he still went to Parliament
EVALUATION: Majority govts, it is easy to dictate policy
Eg Johnson managed to get Brexit done and Sunak on the Windsor Framework
Paragraph 3:
The executive do not find it hard to dictate policy due to the power of Commander-in-chief
Can dictate foreign policy
Eg Thatcher used powers of CIC to deploy troops against Argentina to solidify the control of the Falkland Islands
Eg Sunak in January 2024 launched airstrikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen who were disrupting trade in the Red Sea
EVALUATION: Cameron was PM yet still went to Parliament on whether to airstrike Syria
Blair used powers of CIC to bomb Iraq, but this led to his downfall as no weapons of mass destruction were found, and he resigned in 2007
Evaluate the view that power lies mainly with the PM rather than the cabinet
Strong Pms ignore cabinet
Blair + sofa govt + reliance on campbell
Patronage powers
Sunak appoints braverman
Using collective ministerial responsibility to control ministers
Boris johnson used his cabinets same views to get brexit done and get support
CCR is sometimes suspended eg brexit + coalition
