prime minister and the executive

Question 1

the structure and the role of the executive.

Answer 1

structure :

• executive = the goverment
• most important members of the executive are the prime minister and the cabinet.
  cabinet = the head of the department of states + chief whip.
• junior ministers are also members of the government although they do not generally attend cabinet.
• the executive Is served by senior civil servants, who run the administration of the departments of state and implement government policies. The most important
  of these is the chief secretary to the cabinet, the country’s most senior civil servant, who provides impartial guidance to the prime minister as well as taking the minutes
  of cabinet meetings.
• the prime minister also takes policy advice from key political advisors such as the cabinet office and the policy unit on 10 downing street.

role :

• introduces into parliament proposals for new legislation based on the manifesto wich it fought for in the general election. this is included in the kings speech wich is delivered to parliament at the state opening of a new government to both the hoc and the hol
• introduces into parliament legislation in response to changing circumstances. this is known as the ‘doctors mandate’. this is referred to in the kings speech ‘ other measures will be laid before you’
• It introduces a Budget, which outlines how the government proposes to raise revenue. This is presented to Parliament in the autumn and is drawn up by the
  chancellor of the exchequer in negotiation with the prime minister.
• It can also introduce secondary or delegated legislation. This means that
  when legislation has already been passed by Parliament it can be modified by the government without the need for new primary legislation. Statutory instruments, sometimes known as Henry VIII clauses, are used to make these changes. They have been criticised for being undemocratic as they seek to bypass
  full parliamentary scrutiny and debate. During the Covid-19 pandemic many restrictions on public activity and personal freedoms were introduced through statutory instruments, leading to criticism from the speaker of the House of
  Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, that this had shown ‘a total disregard for the
  House’.

Question 2

The sources of power of the prime minister

Answer 2

the authority of the prime minister to govern the nation is given to him/her by the monarch on the basis that he/she has managed to accumulate the support of the majority of mps in the house of commons. they must also have the support of their political party.

key figures such as margerat thatcher 1990, and boris johnson 2022 resigned when it was clear they had lost the support of their party.

in exceptional circumstances, the prime minister can be appointed without leading their party.
in 1940, king goerge the 6th appointed winston Churchill as the prime minister. this is because the king was certain that only Churchill could establish an all party wartime colation.

There is also a convention that the prime minister should be a member of the House of Commons. When Lord Home formed a government following the resignation of Harold Macmillan in 1963, he renounced his peerage and fought a by-election to
secure a seat in the House of Commons. The prime minister can be asked by the monarch to form a government having won a general election or because they are replacing a prime minister who has resigned.

Question 3

The powers of the prime minister

Answer 3

The prime minister, as the head of the executive, exercises the royal prerogative.
These executive powers derive from the monarchy but are exercised on the monarch’s
behalf by the prime minister. As a result of the transfer of royal prerogative powers,
the prime minister:
l determines the membership of the government, including the cabinet and cabinet
committees

• makes senior appointments to the civil service and judiciary
• recommends most appointment of life peers to the House of Lords
• directs military forces in combat
  decides whether to activate the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent.

The government shares in the prime minister’s royal prerogative. For example, in
2013 the Ministry of Justice requested a posthumous royal pardon for Alan Turing.
Turing cracked the German enigma code in the Second World War but in 1952 was
convicted of ‘gross indecency’ with another man.

Question 4

The role of government departments

Answer 4

the goverment compromises of cabinet ministers and junior ministers.
Cabinet ministers are generally in charge of departments of
state.
The function of government departments is to manage that particular area of
government and to develop policy.

Each ministerial team makes proposals for legislation concerning their department.
This includes the introduction of major primary legislation into Parliament and also
the amending of existing legislation, known as secondary or delegated legislation.
The key figures in a department are the secretary of state, who takes ultimate
responsibility for the department, and their junior ministers, who are also bound by
the principle of collective ministerial responsibility.

Each department relies on the
support of the civil service, headed by a chief secretary. Unlike political advisers, the
civil service is defined by the principles of neutrality, anonymity and permanence,
which means that civil servants should provide impartial advice, to any government,
on policy development and implementation. They are therefore not expected to be
held accountable for the actions of a department since the overall focus of policy and
administration should have been determined by elected politicians.

Question 5

Individual ministerial responsibility

Answer 5

ministers must be held accounatble for the actions of their department.

they should therefore justudy the actions of their department during parlimentary debate and by appearing before select committees.

individual ministerial responsibility also means that a minister should take responsibility for serious administrative or policy mistake within their department of wich they should have been aware of.

The Ministerial Code of Conduct (1997, updated 2019 and 2022) establishes the
following general principles that ministers should obey:

1:1 ‘Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour
and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.’
1:2 ‘Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour
wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not
be tolerated.’
1:3 (b) ‘Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for
the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies.’
1:3 (c) ‘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.’
1:6 ‘Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the
Prime Minister. He is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected
of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.’

Question 6

individual ministerial responsibility - Administrative failure

Answer 6

In 1954, Sir Thomas Dugdale resigned as minister of agriculture over the Crichel
Down affair, when his department failed to return land to its rightful owner after it
had been compulsorily purchased to be a bombing range before the Second World
War. Although Dugdale’s civil servants were the ones mostly at fault, Dugdale
resigned, telling Parliament, ‘I, as minister, must accept full responsibility for any
mistakes and inefficiency of officials in my department, just as, when my officials
bring off any successes on my behalf, I take full credit for them.’

Question 7

Individual ministerial responsibility - policy failure

times in wich ministers have resigned and not resigned.

Answer 7

In 1982, Lord Carrington resigned as foreign secretary from Margaret Thatcher’s
government in the immediate aftermath of Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands.
The reason for his resignation was that the Foreign Office should have been more
aware of Argentina’s intentions and should have made clearer what the response of
the British government would be to any military intervention. In his resignation
letter, he wrote:
‘The Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands has led to strong criticism in
Parliament and in the press of the Government’s policy. In my view, much of the
criticism is unfounded. But I have been responsible for the conduct of that policy,
and I think it right that I should resign.’

In 2002, Tony Blair’s education secretary, Estelle Morris, was caught up in a political crisis over who should take responsibility for a scandal involving inappropriate
A-level grade fixing. Like Lord Carrington, she took full responsibility for the
policy failure and resigned.

Norman Lamont, chancellor of the exchequer, 1992 On ‘Black Wednesday’ (16 September 1992) the Major government was forced to abandon the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM), having raised interest rates by a staggering 5% in a desperate attempt to retain membership. As chancellor of the exchequer, Lamont was most closely associated with this policy failure. Lamont refused to resign, however, because the policy he was pursuing was also that of the prime minister. He claimed that since Major had not resigned, neither should he.

Michael Howard, home secretary, 1995 As home secretary, Michael Howard was widely criticised for not resigning following a series of mass breakouts from Parkhurst jail. These indicated significant administrative failings within the Home Office. Instead, Howard sacked the director
general of the Prison Service, Derek Lewis, since he had been in operational control of the policy that had led to the escapes. Lewis subsequently won a case of wrongful
dismissal against Howard.

Gavin Williamson, education secretary, 2020 In 2020, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, schools were required to provide A-level and GCSE candidates with centre-assessed grades, which would then be modified by means of an algorithm. When this led to many A-level pupils not achieving the grades they required for university, Williamson abandoned the algorithm and
pupils were given grades based purely on their centre assessment. Although Sally Collier, chief regulator of Ofqual, resigned because of her responsibility for the policy failure, Williamson remained in his post as education secretary until 2021
when Boris Johnson dismissed him from the government

Question 8

Individual ministerial responsibility - scandal

Answer 8

A minister can also be held accountable for their personal conduct and if this brings the government into disrepute, they are expected to take responsibility for their actions and, if appropriate, resign.

John Profumo, secretary of state for war, 1963 John Profumo was one of the rising stars of the Macmillan government. However, in
1963 the press uncovered evidence of his affair with the 19-year-old Christine Keeler, who had also been in a relationship with a soviet spy, Yevgeny Ivanov. Having lied to
Parliament about his relationship with Keeler, Profumo resigned.

Chris Huhne, energy secretary, 2012
Chris Huhne was forced to resign from the coalition government over media claims that he had perverted the course of justice by colluding with his former wife, Vicky Pryce, so that she took responsibility for his speeding offence. Both were convicted and sent to prison for the crime.

Priti Patel, international development secretary, 2017 Priti Patel resigned from Theresa May’s government over a series of unofficial private meetings that she’d had with Israeli ministers, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Patel’s failure to report the meetings also put her directly in contravention of the code’s requirement that ‘any significant content should be passed back to the department as soon as possible after the event’.

Question 9

No more good chaps?

( how the principle of individual ministerial responsibility relies on the prime minister )

Answer 9

The principle of individual ministerial responsibility, of course, depends on the prime minister being prepared to hold their ministers properly accountable, as well as not breaching the Ministerial Code of Conduct themselves.

However, in 2022 this came close to breaking point when Boris Johnson was accused of misleading Parliament over whether he had attended Downing Street parties in defiance of the government’s own Covid-19 lockdown restrictions.
As the political crisis intensified, in May a report by senior civil servant Sue Gray accused No. 10 of ‘failures of leadership and judgement

Soon after, Johnson announced a revision of the ministerial code. Reference to ‘integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty
and leadership in the public interest’ was removed from the prime minister’s foreword and the revised code was accompanied by the statement that it would be ‘disproportionate to expect that any breach, however minor, should lead automatically to resignation or dismissal’.

In June, 41% of Conservative MPs called upon Johnson to step down as prime minister. However, he still refused to relinquish office and it was only when 62/179 ministers in his
government resigned in the wake of the Chris Pincher scandal that he reluctantly agreed to leave office.
The smooth operation of individual ministerial responsibility is therefore clearly dependent
on the conduct of the prime minister.

Question 10

Collective ministerial responsibility

Answer 10

according to the prciniples of collective ministerial responsibility, if the prime minister loses a vote of confidence, the whole government must reisign.

• collective ministerial responsibility requires that cabinet meetings are kept private in order to maintain the integrity of the government.
• a core aspect of collective ministerial responsibility is that government ministers must support government policy in public even if in private they are highly critical of them. this is important in maintaining the unity of the government emphasises its strength and the prime ministers authority.
• if a minister cannot publically agree with government policy or the way in wich government is being run they have no choice but to reisign and return to the backbench where they are free to criticise the government

Question 11

Collective ministerial responsibility - High-profile ministerial resignations over collective responsibility

Answer 11

Geoffrey Howe, leader of the House of Commons and deputy prime minister, 1990 The pro-European Geoffrey Howe resigned from the Thatcher government on 1 November 1990, just 2 days after Margaret Thatcher delivered her famous assault on European federalism in her ‘No, no, no’ speech. In his resignation speech to the House of Commons on 13 November, Howe explained that he could no longer serve under an increasingly Eurosceptic prime minister. Howe’s resignation prompted the leadership challenge of Michael Heseltine and by the end of November, Thatcher had been forced from office.

Robin Cook, leader of the House of Commons, 2003 In 2003, Robin Cook resigned from Tony Blair’s government over its preparations
for war against Iraq. Cook was unconvinced by claims that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the UK’s national interests and in his resignation speech explained,
‘I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.’ Jeremy Corbyn, among others, lent him his support. The UK continued its preparations for war and Blair won a third general election victory
in 2005.

Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sajid Javid, health
secretary, 2022 Criticisms of Boris Johnson’s style of leadership came to a head when his deputy chief whip, Chris Pincher, resigned over allegations that he had sexually assaulted two men. When it became clear that Johnson had been aware of previous complaints made against Pincher, Sunak and Javid resigned within minutes of each other. Sunak’s
resignation letter focused on economic policy differences with the prime minister: ‘In preparation for our proposed joint speech on the economy next week, it has become
clear to me that our approaches are fundamentally too different.’ In contrast, Javid focused on what he called the prime minister’s lack of ‘integrity’ and failure to instil
‘strong values’. Fatally damaged, Johnson announced his resignation 2 days later.

Question 12

collective ministerial responsibility - Breaking the rules?

Answer 12

The extent to which collective ministerial responsibility always operates can, however, be contested. Ministers can choose to remain in government while making indiscreet criticisms of it.

In 1974, three members of Harold Wilson’s government, Tony Benn, Judith Hart and Joan Lestor, backed a resolution by Labour’s National Executive Council condemning the government’s decision to agree to joint UK/South African naval exercises as a ‘gross error’. A furious Wilson reminded them that if they
were not prepared to abide by collective ministerial responsibility then he would acknowledge this ‘as a decision on your part that you did not wish to continue as a member of this administration’. They did not resign.

From 2010 to 2015, Vince Cable was the Liberal Democrat business secretary in David Cameron’s coalition government. Frequently critical of his Conservative
colleagues, in 2014 he publicly criticised George Osborne’s cuts in public expenditure in his autumn budget statement.

During the 2 years before Boris Johnson resigned from May’s government in 2018, his criticisms of the government’s developing EU policy had been notably
hostile. When, for example, the prime minister said she favoured a customs
partnership with the EU, Johnson told the Daily Mail that the plan was ‘totally untried and would make it very, very difficult to do free trade deals’. He also argued in The Sun that there should be ‘no monkeying around’ over withdrawal
from the EU. May, however, refused to sack him as foreign secretary, claiming that she preferred not to have ‘a cabinet of yes men’.

Question 13

collective ministerial responsibility - Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible ( when cmr has been abandoned)

Answer 13

On rare occasions, the prime minister may acknowledge that it is impossible to achieve collective ministerial responsibility. In these circumstances the convention is suspended and ministers are allowed to disagree publicly with each other.

In 2016, David Cameron made a similar concession to his cabinet. Although he personally campaigned on behalf of Remain, he knew that if he demanded that Eurosceptic members of his cabinet, such as Michael Gove and Chris Grayling,
support membership then he would suffer a series of damaging resignations. Consequently, he suspended collective ministerial responsibility on this issue,
allowing members of the cabinet such as Iain Duncan Smith (Work and Pensions) and Theresa Villiers (Northern Ireland) to campaign against membership even though the policy of the government was to remain.

In 2010, the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition was established. Although they had, of course, campaigned against each other in the general election, David Cameron and Nick Clegg were able to agree a coalition agreement on those
areas where government ministers would have to obey collective ministerial responsibility. However, some contentious areas were not covered by the agreement and so on these ministers could still publicly disagree. These included Trident renewal and the construction of new nuclear power stations, both of
which the Liberal Democrats had vigorously opposed in the general election. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats also campaigned on different sides on the alternative vote referendum in 2011. In 2014, Nick Clegg publicly stated that
he would not support David Cameron if he sought parliamentary approval to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria.

In 2016, Theresa May temporarily suspended collective ministerial responsibility over controversial government plans to expand Heathrow. Two members of her
cabinet (Boris Johnson, Foreign Office and Justine Greening, Education) had
constituencies that would be affected and were known to be against expansion. To avoid potential resignations May did not require their public support.

Question 14

Collective ministerial responsibility challenged,
2017–19

Answer 14

on the 15 january 2019, theresa mays government suffered a devastating parlimentary defeat when 118 eursceptic conservative mps voted against their own government over there’s mays proposed brexit deals.

her loss by 230 vote was the biggest in history (432/202)

Some critics suggested that
since the government had been defeated on its leading manifesto commitment it should have
resigned. In 1940, for example, although Neville Chamberlain won an adjournment debate on
the government’s handling of the Norway expedition, he resigned when 39 government MPs
failed to support him.

However, having come close to being defeated by Jeremy Corbyn in the 2017 general election,
May was unwilling to risk another general election. Conservative MPs were also determined
to avoid this and so when Corbyn called a vote of confidence, they rallied around the prime
minister (325/306), giving her a 19-vote majority. The government subsequently lost two more
attempts to get the House of Commons to support its EU withdrawal agreement by 149 votes
(12 March) and 58 votes (29 March).

Question 15

The prime minister and the cabinet - The functions of the cabinet

Answer 15

The cabinet consists of 20–25 senior government ministers who generally head large departments of state. It usually meets once a week for no more than 2 hours on a Thursday morning, although in a crisis it can also be summoned.

there can be intense debate and disagreement within cabinet, the prime minister expects all
present to publicly support the government’s decisions and policies based on the principle of collective ministerial responsibility. If a member of the cabinet cannot
publicly agree to a policy determined by cabinet, they should have to resign and join the back benches, where they are free to criticise the government.

roles of the cabinet

• approve decisions made elsewhere, stamping them with the seal of goverment policy. this maintains the unity of the goverment.
• determines key issues in policy.
  In 1976, James Callaghan
  allowed the cabinet to freely debate whether to accept a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
• decide how goverment will determine business. if controversial legislation is planning to be introduced into parliament, the cabinet will need to discuss how it will best be presented and ministers need to know when they should be available on the front benches to enthusiastically support it. the chief wip will also explain wether there is likely to be sufficient goverment majority for a bill and so the cabinet may debate any concessions
  they may need to make in order to win parliamentary support.

Question 16

How is the cabinet selected?

Answer 16

By deciding who is in the cabinet, the prime minister puts their own stamp upon government.

The prime minister is under great pressure to include in their cabinet influential colleagues and dominant personalities.
- Harold Wilson knew that George Brown, whom he had defeated for the party leadership, was rated more highly than him by many Labour supporters — ‘Better George Brown drunk than Harold Wilson
sober’ — and so he appointed him deputy prime minister.

The prime minister also advances to senior positions key allies they can rely on to provide unwavering support in a crisis.
- Margaret Thatcher relied totally on the advice and support of William Whitelaw,
her first home secretary. She also advanced to key positions politicians like Norman Tebbit (Employment) and Cecil Parkinson (party chairman), who loyally shared her political views.

Party unity is vital, so the prime minister often decides to balance their cabinet to avoid alienating certain sections of the party.
- This was well exemplified by Tony
Blair’s inclusion of John Prescott, who served as deputy prime minister from 1997 to 2007. Prescott was from the working-class left of the Labour Party and had had a career in the merchant navy. He gained influence as a militant member of the National Union of Seamen and then entered Parliament. By appointing Prescott
to such a prominent role in government, Blair reassured the left of the party that New Labour had not entirely abandoned its socialist ideology.

When there is a coalition, the prime minister’s right to appoint is severely restricted.
- In 2010, David Cameron, as part of the Coalition Agreement, had to appoint Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister and give the Liberal Democrats 5 out of the 22 seats in
cabinet.

Question 17

How significant is the cabinet?

Answer 17

some may say that the cabinet is the most important part of government, others claim that the cabinet It is more of a rubber stamp for policy that have already been made elsewhere.

prime ministers have acquired os many other sources of advice and information, and are now treated so presidentailly by the media, that they will have already decided the focus and direction of their government without needing to talk through cabinet.

its been claimed that the UK is now more of a prime ministerial. government rather than a cabinet goveremnt.

the expansion of the prime ministers private office had provided an enhanced engine of goveremnt.

• in 1974, on his return to office, harold wilson set up the policy unit on 10 downing street to provide him with his own support on political strategy and support.
• tony balir also introduced the position of chief off staff. this was established to cooridnate gov policy.
• The Press Office under Alastair Campbell became more prominent in government, ensuring that Downing Street had more control over how news stories were presented and responded to.
• Blair increasingly relied on special advisers (SPADS) for advice rather than the
  civil service. His successors have continued to use SPADS to develop policy because, as political appointments, they are committed to the same political ideology as the prime minister. For example, one prominent SPAD, Dominic Cummings, played a vital and highly partisan role as Boris Johnson’s chief adviser (2019–20) in determining the policy priorities and strategies of his
  government.
• Like Blair, Boris Johnson was keen to put his stamp very firmly on all aspects of government policy. He demanded that cabinet members’ political advisers
  be approved by No. 10, prompting Sajid Javid’s resignation as chancellor of the exchequer in 2020. The cabinet office was also given enhanced powers to supervise the work of each department

However, it would be wrong to dismiss the influence of cabinet. Every cabinet is composed of the most powerful and influential members of a political party and the prime minister would be unwise to ignore the political experience that the cabinet can provide.

• In 2018, Jeremy Hunt refused Theresa May’s attempt to move him from the then Department of Health and even managed to expand his role to being health and social care secretary.

The prime minister’s ability to govern and achieve the outcomes they want also depends on them maintaining the confidence of the cabinet.

• In 1956, Anthony Eden was forced to announce a ceasefire against Egypt in the
  Suez War when the cabinet refused to support further hostilities.

Once Margaret Thatcher (1990) and Boris Johnson (2022) lost the support of their cabinets, they were both forced to resign office.

Question 18

Prime ministers and their cabinets

Answer 18

Prime ministers with small or non-existent parliamentary majorities and with ideologically divided parties will also need to consult cabinet to maintain party unity.

• As prime minister, James Callaghan (1976–79) lacked a parliamentary majority and led an administration divided between left and right. He therefore worked hard to achieve consensus in cabinet on contentious debates such as the IMF loan (1976)
  to stop his government from fracturing.

In her first government (1979–83),
Margaret Thatcher faced opposition from one-nation Conservatives who distrusted her monetarist policies and so she needed to ensure cabinet unity by thoroughly debating controversial policies. As challenges to her authority diminished in her second (1983–87) and third governments (1987–90),
so did her use of cabinet.

In contrast Tony Blair had a clear vision of what he wanted to achieve as prime minister, as well as strong parliamentary majorities, and so cabinet became more focused on reporting decisions that had already been made elsewhere. Blair’s failure
to properly consult cabinet even led one member, Mo Mowlam, to claim in 2001 that ‘cabinet itself is dead, it doesn’t have a function to play’.

However, it is important not to generalise. Despite his powerful 80-seat majority
in the December 2019 general election, Boris Johnson understood the value of debating contentious issues in cabinet to maintain unity and avoid damaging resignations. In December 2021, cabinet freely discussed the case for new Covid
restrictions to stop the alarming spread of the Omicron variant. At the meeting Johnson allowed supporters of the new measures, including health secretary Sajid Javid, to argue the case with opponents of new measures including the chancellor
of the exchequer, Rishi Sunak. The cabinet lasted double its normal length and at the end Johnson announced he had not been convinced there was ‘enough data’ for further restrictions.

Question 19

Debate
Does the cabinet play a central role in British government?

Answer 19

for

During political crises the prime minister will need to
discuss all the options open to them with the cabinet
since the cabinet contains the accumulated wisdom of
the government - ( e.g boris johnson covid debates last flashcards)

against

however, prim ministers can choose not to consult caibent.
this is seen when margarte thatcher pushed issues such as poll tax through cabinet with insificcuent discussion and discouraged deabtes during the westland crisis. highlighting how cabinet can be overlooked if chosen to by the prime minister.

for

cabinet meets to give the prime minister political advice and debate on proposed legislation, policiys and decisions. this can be seen for example when In 1976, James Callaghan’s cabinet thoroughly
discussed the IMF loan. both sides presented their cases and argued why or why not they should have the loan, helping the prime minister come to a decision.

against

the prime minister can easily turn to other political advisors. Harold Wilson liked to make decisions through a small body of core advisers in his Downing Street flat. This
was known as the ‘kitchen cabinet’ and included key friends and allies such as his secretary Marcia
Williams, press secretary Joe Haines and political adviser Bernard Donoughue. showing how easy cabinet can be replaced and discarded.

for

prime ministers need the support of their cabinet to lead government
The resignations of the chancellor of the exchequer, Rishi Sunak, and the health secretary, Sajid Javid, from
Boris Johnson’s government on 5 July 2022 triggered three other cabinet resignations. Facing the collapse of
his government, Johnson announced his resignation on 7 July 2022.

however, although pms may not have the support of their cabinet all the time, it may not lead to their resignattion. 1974, Tony Benn, backed a resolution by Labour’s National Executive Council condemning the government’s decision to agree to joint UK/South African naval exercises as a ‘gross error’. tony been being secrator of state for industry at the time, failed to give his support for the prime ministers action. yet it led to nothing but a furious harold wilson.

Question 20

Two examples of how prime ministers can approach cabinet

Answer 20

The IMF loan, 1976

In 1976 the Labour government was in turmoil over whether to accept a loan from the International Monetary Fund with its accompanying demands for stringent cuts in public spending. The chancellor of the exchequer, Denis Healey, argued that there was no alternative to the loan. However, Callaghan needed to prove that the
government was united on the issue and so allowed the cabinet to fully debate it. The leading opponent of the loan, Tony Benn, noted in his diary on 1 December 1976 that Callaghan told the cabinet, ‘We shall have to rally to the majority view,
whatever it is, or it will not be possible for me to carry on.’

The Westland affair, 1986
During 1985 and 1986, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence clashed over whether a British firm, Westland Helicopters, should be taken over
by an American or European bid. The dispute proved so irreconcilable that it went to cabinet to be resolved. However, the defence secretary, Michael Heseltine, complained
that Margaret Thatcher’s obvious bias towards the American business undermined genuine cabinet debate and he spectacularly resigned during a meeting of the cabinet on 9 January 1986, allegedly stating, ‘I can no longer be a member of this cabinet.’

Question 21

To what extent is the prime minister the dominant
force in politics? - Harold Macmillan (1957–63)

Answer 21

In 1962, Harold Macmillan determined to give new energy to his government by sacking
a third of his cabinet, including his chancellor of the exchequer, Selwyn Lloyd. Far from enhancing his authority, the decision gave the impression that Macmillan had lost his deft political touch and was in panic. The young Liberal MP Jeremy Thorpe claimed, ‘greater love hath no man than he lay down his friends for his life’ and Macmillan’s reputation never recovered as the press went from referring to him as ‘Supermac’ to ‘Mac the knife’. A year later, the Profumo scandal, in which Macmillan’s secretary of state for war, John Profumo, was forced to resign over an affair with Christine Keeler that seemed to threaten national security, further undermined Macmillan’s authority and, following emergency surgery, he decided to resign office in October 1963.

Question 22

To what extent is the prime minister the dominant
force in politics? - Edward Heath (1970–74)

Answer 22

Edward Heath had a dominant personality, a loyal cabinet,
a clear vision and a workable parliamentary majority and was determined to modernise the UK. His most significant achievement was using the prestige of his office to negotiate the UK’s entry into the EEC in 1973. However, his authority was challenged by a remarkable series of misfortunes. Miners’ strikes in 1972 and then again in 1974 threatened the nation’s energy supplies, while a dramatic rise in the cost of oil led to a huge increase in global inflation, undermining the government’s economic strategy. Faced by mounting industrial unrest, Heath
called a snap general election in February 1974, which he lost by four seats to Harold Wilson.

Question 23

To what extent is the prime minister the dominant
force in politics? - James Callaghan (1976–79)

Answer 23

Following the resignation of Harold Wilson, James Callaghan became prime minister in 1976. Popular in the party and with a strong personal approval rating in the nation, he quickly stamped his authority on government. At the 1976 Labour
Party conference, he challenged the post-war economic consensus, telling delegates: ‘The cosy world we were told would go on for ever, where full employment would be guaranteed by a stroke of the Chancellor’s pen, cutting taxes, deficit spending;
that cosy world is gone.’
The result of the speech was a sudden and dramatic change in government policy from high spending to deflationary measures. This commitment to deflation proved
to be effective in starting to bring down inflation. Callaghan, however, decided not to call a general election in the autumn of 1978, which
he was widely expected to win. That winter the authority of his government was undermined by a series of damaging strikes that became known as the Winter of Discontent. Abandoned by the Liberal Party and the nationalist parties, his minority government eventually lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, forcing Callaghan to call
a general election at the worst possible time for the survival of his government.

Question 24

To what extent is the prime minister the dominant
force in politics? - John Major (1990–97)

Answer 24

When he replaced Margaret Thatcher as prime minister in 1990, John Major quickly changed the dynamic of the Conservative government. He ditched the unpopular poll tax and was widely praised for negotiating an opt-out from the social chapter in the Maastricht Treaty. However, Major achieved only a 21-seat majority in the 1992 general election. This gave Eurosceptic Conservative MPs the opportunity to disrupt ratification of the treaty, exposing growing divisions within the Conservative Party.
In June 1995, John Major resigned the leadership of the Conservative Party, telling his Eurosceptic critics to either ‘put up or shut up’. One member of his cabinet, John Redwood, decided to take up the challenge, winning the support of 89 MPs to Major’s 218 in a leadership ballot, further exposing the divisions and highlighting
Major’s declining authority as prime minister. Allegations of ministerial sleaze and constant media criticism, together with Tony Blair’s combative leadership of the Labour Party, further contributed to his decline.

Question 25

To what extent is the prime minister the dominant
force in politics? - David Cameron (2010–16)

Answer 25

As coalition prime minister, David Cameron introduced major
cuts to public expenditure as part of the government’s austerity
programme. He also put the weight of his authority behind legislation
allowing same-sex marriage despite the opposition of large numbers
of more traditionalist Conservative MPs. Coalition government
placed significant restraints on Cameron’s freedom of manoeuvre,
however. As part of the Coalition Agreement, he had to allow a
referendum on electoral reform in 2011 and he failed to reform
parliamentary boundaries when the Liberal Democrats withdrew
their support. His failure to persuade Parliament to support bombing
President Assad in 2013, following the use of chemical weapons in
Syria, further demonstrated the limits on his authority. Cameron’s promise to call a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU probably helped to keep the Conservative Party united and helped him win the 2015 general election. However, the surprise vote for Brexit which provoked Cameron’s immediate resignation on 24 June 2016 highlights that the prime minister cannot always control events. Cameron had campaigned hard for Remain and the victory for Leave meant, he said, that it would not be right for him to ‘be the captain that steers our country to its next destination’.

Question 26

To what extent is the prime minister the dominant
force in politics? - Boris Johnson (2019–22)

Answer 26

Boris Johnson’s prime ministership provides the most stunning example of how political fortunes can change. Having achieved a highly personal 2019 general election victory, Johnson initially dominated politics. With no potential rivals for the leadership, Brexit secured, the party united around him, a lacklustre
opposition and very favourable press coverage, Johnson was seemingly impregnable. However, as allegations that he had broken lockdown regulations and then misled Parliament began to surface, Johnson’s grip on power steadily diminished. Serious criticisms of his style of government in the Sue Gray Report, closely followed by 41% of Conservative MPs voting against him in a vote of confidence, significantly undermined his authority. When it became known that Johnson had still appointed Chris Pincher deputy chief whip despite serious personal allegations having been made against him, Johnson’s judgement and probity were further criticised. In these circumstances the resignations of two such high-profile cabinet members as Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid within moments of each other left Johnson completely exposed and within 2 days he was forced to announce his resignation.

Question 27

Debate
The prime minister is the dominant force in UK politics

Answer 27

yes

The cabinet is selected by the prime minister. Cabinet careers can also be advanced or ruined by the prime
minister. This gives the prime minister significant patronage power, consolidating their authority within
the party. for example May had to sack another close ally in Green, effectively her deputy PM, after he made misleading statements about pornography found on his office computer. this emphasises how prime ministers are compellty authoritative on who gets to be in he cabinet.

no

prime ministers are not always in complete authority. In 2010, David Cameron, as part of the Coalition Agreement, had to appoint Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister and give the Liberal Democrats 5 out of the 22 seats in cabinet. this shows how in certain circumstances if the prime minister does not lead a majority party, there force will be undermined.

yes

The prime minister determines the main policy objectives of government (Boris Johnson: Brexit, increased defence spending, levelling up). This is sometimes referred to as ‘making the political weather’. Boris Johnson signalled a significant increase in the UK’s defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade in 2022, showcasing how the prime minister chooses the direction of wich policy making goes.

no

Boris Johnson (2019) lacked the necessary parliamentary support to achieve his EU withdrawal
agreement. His authority was so limited that on 3 September 2019 the House of Commons voted to take
control of parliamentary business.

yes

as the head of the executive, wich is the largest party in the house of commons, the prime minister is arguably the most soverign member of Parliament. this means that he/she has the strongest authority and no one can challenge them. we saw an ecanple of this in 2022, when despite boris johnson lost 41% of the confidence of his mps, he still refused to resign, showcasing that prime ministers have ultimate authority to do what they want.

no

The Supreme Court can challenge the authority of the prime minister. (Theresa May’s attempt to secure EU withdrawal without parliamentary approval in 2016 and
Boris Johnson’s attempt to prorogue Parliament in 2019).

Question 28

Presidents in all but name?

Answer 28

prime ministers have become so
dominant in cabinet, and the media have become so obsessed with their characters,
that their personal charisma and influence have enabled them to dominate decision
making as pseudo-presidential figures..

The presidentialism thesis of British politics dates from the 1960s, when Harold
Wilson, as an admirer of President John F. Kennedy (1961–63), confidently utilised
television to reach out directly to the public, creating a close relationship between
him and the voters. He clearly understood, too, the political power of a good photo
opportunity and was regularly pictured with celebrities such as The Beatles and the
cast of Coronation Street.

The political writer Michael Foley has linked the presidential model to what he
has termed ‘spatial leadership’, in which a prime minister creates their own space
by distancing themselves from their party and thereby securing a personal mandate
directly from the public in much the same way as a president does. This enables the
prime minister to rise above the party and, in a presidential manner, appeal directly
to the people.

The development of the media has also provided more opportunities for prime
ministers to act in a presidential manner. The media’s appetite for celebrity news
and their enthusiastic coverage of personal interventions in global crises have
further increased the constant spotlight on the prime minister rather than on the
government.

During both the Falklands War (1982) and the miners’ strike (1984–85) it was
Thatcher, rather than her cabinet, who provided the leadership that the media and
the public focused on. Thatcher also won support from significant numbers of C2 voters who traditionally support Labour. This demonstrated the strength of her ‘spatial’ appeal as a presidential
figure not associated with traditional party allegiances.

Blair’s rhetoric was also highly personal, emphasising his moral focus, which
developed his relationship with the public above less ideologically driven politicians.
He frequently referred to government policy as though it was his own. For example, ‘The people entrusted me with the task of leading their country’ and ‘This is the
Britain I offer you.’ The energy with which he intervened in all aspects of government policy (sometimes over the authority of the minister concerned) further focused attention on Blair rather than his government. Blair’s high-profile personal interventions were crucial in driving forward the Northern Ireland peace process: ‘This is not a time for soundbites. We feel the weight of history upon us.’
In the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Blair, characteristically,
reached beyond Parliament and put the case for war directly to the public through
television discussions and debates.
According to the presidential model, the cabinet becomes almost irrelevant to
decision making in the same way as its role is more marginal in the USA. The prime
minister can increasingly afford to ignore the cabinet because they have their own
mandate directly from the people through public acclamation and so have less need
to have their policies legitimised by cabinet.
Blair further enhanced the more presidential atmosphere in Downing Street by more closely modelling it on the White House. The new position of chief of
staff was established and the prime minister’s Private Office and Cabinet Office
were enlarged to provide greater control from the centre and more ‘joined-up’
government.

David Cameron also understood how to use the media spotlight. On several
occasions he acted in a presidential fashion by associating a specific policy with his
personal authority rather than his government. He notably did this when he very publicly and personally put forward the case for same-sex marriage. In the 2014
Scottish referendum and the 2016 EU referendum Cameron deployed the personal prestige of his office to back Better Together and Remain.

The 2010, 2015 and 2017 general election campaigns all included televised leaders’
debates, further making UK politics more presidential by publicly displaying the
leadership qualities of the candidates. Such debates have been integral to US politics since the Kennedy/Nixon debates in 1960, but are a significant innovation
in the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, further focusing attention on the leader.

However, it would be misleading to suggest that prime ministers are essentially now
presidents. The UK is a parliamentary democracy and government is based on the
principle of collective ministerial responsibility. This means that a British prime minister, unlike a US president, possesses no electoral mandate from the public. Their authority depends on having a parliamentary majority and maintaining the
support of their parliamentary party. In 1979, for example, James Callaghan was
forced to call a general election when he lost a vote of confidence in the House of
Commons, and in 1990, Margaret Thatcher resigned as prime minister when she lost
the support of her cabinet. These events occurred because the UK is a parliamentary
democracy. They could not have happened in the USA, where a president has a
personal electoral mandate and can only be forced to resign for committing ‘high
crimes and misdemeanours’ in defiance of the Constitution.

A British prime minister is constitutionally incapable of being a president, although,
as we have seen, certain prime ministers can display presidential characteristics if their character and political circumstances permit. Others, however, are entirely free of
presidential attributes.

Many prime ministers are personally ill suited to a presidential role or are
politically weak.

Gordon Brown was another uncharismatic prime minister, whose attempts to
speak directly to the nation were ruthlessly parodied by the comedian Rory
Bremner. Indeed, such was his lack of charisma that his colleague Robin Cook
once commented that he had ‘a face like a wet winter’s morning in Fife’.

Theresa May initially displayed presidential characteristics when she became
prime minister in 2016, but her failure to engage with the public during the 2017
general election and the humiliating loss of her parliamentary majority ensured
that she was unable to govern in a presidential fashion.

Whether or not a prime minister acts in a presidential manner therefore depends very much on their personality and power base. Indeed, if prime ministers try to act in
too presidential a manner, this is likely to antagonise the House of Commons, from
where they derive their political power. However, Liz Truss’ failure to successfully
communicate her policies and resolve outside No. 10, and in her press conference on her sacking of Kwasi Kwarteng as chancellor of the exchequer, may also indicate that at least some presidential characteristics are required in a successful prime minister.

Question 29

Boris Johnson: a presidential prime minister?

Answer 29

Boris Johnson’s highly personal style of leadership made him ideally suited to be a presidential prime minister. His ‘celebrity’ media personality, which he had cultivated as mayor of London and foreign secretary, gave him an appeal far beyond that of most prime ministers. In the 2019 general election, the Conservative campaign effectively focused on Johnson’s promise
‘to get Brexit done’, helping the Conservatives to their biggest parliamentary majority since 1987. His reliance on the policy unit and the cabinet office for strategic advice and control
further indicated his preference for a presidential approach to politics. The Covid-19 pandemic (2020–) and the Russian invasion of Ukraine (24 February 2022) then presented Johnson with some of the greatest challenges any prime minister has faced since 1940. His approach during
both was to communicate directly with the British people in televised speeches (flanked by Union flags), reinforcing the presidentialism of his government.

Question 30

The limits of presidentialism

Answer 30

With his command of media presentation and striking personality, Boris Johnson was
undoubtedly presidential, establishing a strong rapport with many non-traditional Conservative voters and winning a remarkable 80-seat majority in the 2019 general election. Consequently,
from 5–6 July 2022, as ministerial resignations mushroomed, Johnson claimed that he had a ‘colossal mandate’ from the British people which allowed him ‘to keep going and that’s what I’m going to do’. However, in reality no prime minister possesses a personal mandate. Instead,
their authority depends upon the support of Parliament and their own MPs. When it became clear that Johnson was fast losing the support of both his parliamentary party and government ministers, he therefore had to grudgingly announce that he was resigning office on 7 July 2022.

Question 31

Constitutional differences between presidents and prime ministers

Answer 31

The main constitutional differences between presidents and prime ministers.

A British prime minister is not directly elected by the public. In a general election the electorate votes for an MP and the party leader who has the confidence of the legislature becomes prime minister.

The prime minister is accountable to the legislature and so their government can be dismissed by Parliament if they lose a vote of confidence.

Although the prime minister is head of
government, they are not head of state. In the UK the head of state is the monarch, although most of the monarch’s governing powers are now devolved to the prime minister

The prime minister works closely with the cabinet. Its membership is selected by the prime minister from the legislature and it regularly meets under the chairmanship of the prime minister. As a result of the principle of collective ministerial responsibility, the prime minister will want to achieve consensus within the cabinet.

president

In presidential governments, the
executive is elected separately from
the legislature, which means that
a president possesses a personal
electoral mandate.

Since a president is separately
elected from the legislature, they are
not accountable to the legislature.

A president combines the role of head
of government with head of state.

The president selects the cabinet
from outside the legislature. It meets
much less frequently than the British
cabinet and is rarely chaired by the
president. It plays more of an advisory
role rather than a central role in US
politics

Question 32

Case study
Harold Wilson (1964–70 and
1974–76)

Answer 32

Harold Wilson is often regarded as a highly presidential prime minister who liked to ignore cabinet and would make key
decisions regarding policy within a small group of trusted advisers known as his ‘kitchen cabinet’. Ted Short, Wilson’s
chief whip, even called Wilson’s cabinet ‘the doodling cabinet’ since so little of importance was discussed in it. In her diaries, Barbara Castle, one of the most prominent members of Wilson’s cabinet, frequently vented her frustration that Wilson had already decided with his closest advisers what to do before cabinet even met. Richard Crossman, another leading member of Wilson’s cabinet, was similarly critical, in his diaries and in his book
The Myth of Cabinet Government (1972), of the way in which Wilson bypassed cabinet. ‘So Cabinet as a Cabinet is meeting
less and is less effectively controlling policy than ever before,’ he wrote on 9 March 1969. However, although Wilson liked to give the impression of presidentialism, his party was strongly divided between left
and right and his cabinet was full of extraordinarily strong and combative figures, many of whom wanted his job. His
dominance of the cabinet and his control of events can be exaggerated, as the following examples demonstrate.

• In 1969 Wilson came into conflict with his cabinet over his plans to introduce legal restrictions on the power of the
  trade unions. This was naturally going to be controversial for a Labour government and the White Paper ‘In Place of Strife’, introduced by the employment secretary Barbara Castle, led to a furious row in cabinet. Opposition from most of the cabinet, led by home secretary James Callaghan, eventually forced Wilson into a humiliating climb-down.
• ‘It became clear that Harold’s self-confidence, complacency, bounce and good temper were all breaking down. At one point he said, “Well, you’re all giving this up
  because it’s unpopular” … He was a little man, for the first time dragged down to our level. It was painful because in a
  sense he was sabotaged and utterly nonplussed.’ Richard Crossman’s diary, 17 June 1969
• One of the key reasons why Wilson won the February 1974 general election was that he promised a referendum on British membership of the EEC. By 1975 Wilson, following limited renegotiation of the terms of British membership, was prepared to support Britain’s continued membership.
  However, many Labour MPs opposed membership of the EEC, a special conference of the Labour Party had also
  demanded withdrawal and the cabinet remained divided on the issue of membership. As a result of this Wilson had
  to allow a free vote by cabinet, acknowledging that on this important issue he could not enforce the principle of
  collective ministerial responsibility.

Question 33

Case study
Margaret Thatcher (1979–90)

Answer 33

Margaret Thatcher had a complex relationship with her cabinet. Although she had a very clear sense of purpose
when she initially became prime minister, she appreciated the importance of thoroughly discussing issues in cabinet
to maintain government consensus. This was necessary especially because she had to balance her supporters with those who were associated with her predecessor, Edward Heath, and more one-nation elements within the party.

• In 1981 Thatcher allowed extensive cabinet debate about
  Geoffrey Howe’s controversial tax-raising Budget.
• When Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982, Thatcher
  called an emergency meeting of the cabinet to debate.
• Following her victories over Argentina (1982) and the miners (1984–85) Thatcher
  became increasingly assertive in cabinet. Instead, she preferred to make decisions
  with a small group of key advisers who shared her political opinions. In 1986,
  during the Westland crisis, Michael Heseltine resigned as her defence secretary
  on the grounds that his opinion was no longer being listened to.
• In 1989, her chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Lawson, resigned because he
  complained she was listening to her special economics adviser, Alan Walters, more
  than to him. This high-profile resignation significantly undermined her authority.
• The unpopularity of the poll tax and rising inflation led to a dramatic decline in
  Thatcher’s popularity, reducing the loyalty of the Conservative Party, who feared
  defeat at the next general election.
• Her increasingly Eurosceptic speeches also put her so at odds with most of her
  cabinet that her deputy prime minister, Geoffrey Howe, resigned, prompting
  Michael Heseltine to challenge her for the party leadership.
• When Heseltine won the support of enough Conservative MPs to take his
  leadership challenge to a second round, Thatcher needed the support of the
  cabinet to survive. However, having been taken for granted for so long, one by
  one the cabinet told her she should resign because she would lose.
• In the end, although she had promised to ‘let her name go forward for the second
  ballot’, Thatcher was left with no choice but to announce her resignation on 22
  November 1990.

Question 34

Case study
Tony Blair (1997–2007)

Answer 34

Like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair possessed great self- confidence and a very clear vision of what he wanted to
achieve as prime minister. In the 1997 general election he also achieved a massive parliamentary majority of 179, which gave
him an extraordinary personal mandate to implement change. Blair’s commitment to the centrist third way also provided
his government with strong philosophical foundations. More than any other post-war British prime minister, Blair enjoyed
a strong rapport with the British people, which reached far beyond traditional party loyalties and further persuaded him
that cabinet was insignificant in policy development. Blair’s approach was highly presidential and his government
has often been referred to as a ‘command prime-ministership’, in which the cabinet was so diminished that it was simply
notified of decisions that had already been made in the prime minister’s Private Office. This has also been referred to as a ‘sofa government’, in which Blair made key decisions in bilateral meetings with senior ministers and key advisers such as Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Alastair Campbell, his press secretary.

• Even before his first cabinet had met, Blair and his chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, had decided to give interest-raising powers to the Bank of England. This
  was a momentous political decision designed to encourage economic stability by stopping the government from manipulating interest rates to its advantage. When Robin Butler, the chief secretary to the cabinet, asked if the prime minister would like to discuss this decision with the
  cabinet first, Blair responded, ‘They’ll agree.’
• Blair was personally in favour of building the Millennium Dome, so even though this was strenuously opposed in cabinet, he ignored his colleagues’ reservations and plans continued.
• Preparations for the Iraq War in 2003 were the most striking example of the cabinet not being consulted by Blair on key issues. The publication of the Chilcot Report in 2016 shows how Blair failed to consult the cabinet about the advisability of war and that most members of his government accepted the decision to invade Iraq as a fait accompli.
• However, even Blair’s dominance of cabinet was not total. Part of the deal whereby Gordon Brown would not challenge Blair for the leadership of the Labour Party in 1994 was that Brown would have full control of the British economy.
  Even though Blair was keen to join the European single currency, Brown continually roadblocked this by demanding
  that his ‘five tests’ for membership first be fulfilled.

l Like Margaret Thatcher, Blair’s control of cabinet diminished as his authority waned. Controversies over the legality of the Iraq War and the political fallout of the 2005
general election, which Blair won with only 35.2% of the popular vote (the lowest a single-party government had ever achieved), took Blair from being an electoral asset to being an electoral liability. The cabinet increasingly looked to Gordon Brown to provide the government with a
new dynamic, especially since in 2005 the youthful David Cameron had taken over the leadership of the Conservative
Party. In September 2006, having squandered his effortless control of cabinet, Blair announced that he would
resign as prime minister within a year.

Question 35

Case study
Theresa May (2016–19)

Answer 35

When Theresa May became prime minister in 2016, she was expected to provide firm leadership. Having survived 6 years
in the notoriously challenging role of home secretary, she had won the support of 61% of the parliamentary Conservative
Party in the second ballot of the leadership contest and in her first speech as prime minister she provided a clear vision of
what she wanted her government to achieve. Jeremy Corbyn’s abysmal poll ratings further suggested that she would be able to dominate domestic politics.

• Her ruthless reorganisation of cabinet quickly stamped May’s authority on the new government, especially the sacking of George Osborne as chancellor of the exchequer and his replacement with her long-time ally, Philip Hammond. Another of May’s key supporters, Amber Rudd,
  took over as home secretary.
• Theresa May also put her personal prestige behind controversial commitments such as the reintroduction of grammar schools, allowing a free vote on fox hunting and repealing the Human Rights Act in favour of a British bill of rights.
• The decision to call a snap general election was not discussed in cabinet but taken by Theresa May with her trusted joint chiefs of staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill.
  The Conservative manifesto was then drawn up by Downing Street with no input from the cabinet.
• Even at the height of her popularity, there were significant
  constraints on her authority since she had to balance her
  government so that both Remain and Leave Conservatives
  were given important ministerial roles.
• Her unexpectedly poor campaigning in the 2017 general election dramatically diminished her authority because she was personally associated with the
  government’s loss of its parliamentary majority. This impacted her ability to command the loyalty of her cabinet,
  especially since Jeremy Corbyn had achieved a 9.6% swing to Labour.
• Lacking a parliamentary majority, and with a disunited party, May’s ambitious plans for more grammar schools, a free vote on fox hunting and the repeal of the Human
  Rights Act then had to be scrapped as the government instead had to focus all its energy on achieving Brexit.

l As prime minister of a minority government (2017–19)
May also had to rely on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party, which added new constraints to her freedom of action.

l As the date for the UK to exit the EU came closer, the difficulty of reconciling differing interpretations of Brexit became increasingly apparent. The resignations
of David Davis as Brexit secretary and Boris Johnson as foreign secretary after the cabinet decision to pursue
a softer Brexit further exposed the divisions within the party, challenging her authority. Boris Johnson’s resignation letter was meant to wound May: ‘Brexit should be about opportunity and hope. It should be a
chance to do things differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantage of the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy. That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.’ Massive parliamentary defeats of May’s Brexit deal proposals in January and March 2019 further undermined her grip on power.

• Under increasing pressure from within the Conservative Party, Theresa May announced in May 2019 that she would
  step down as party leader and prime minister. On 24 July 2019 Boris Johnson replaced her as PM, having been
  decisively elected Conservative Party Leader.

Question 36

case study - boris johnson (2019-2022)

Answer 36

During the first 6 months of his prime ministership (July– December 2019) Boris Johnson was a very weak prime minister.
He inherited a minority Conservative administration from Theresa May and a rump of pro-European Conservative MPs who were determined to make it as difficult as possible for the prime minister to risk a ‘no deal Brexit’. The Labour opposition was
also energised, following its strong showing in the 2017 general election, and the Supreme Court and the House of Lords further challenged the prime minister’s authority to get things done.

• On 3 September 2019, the House of Commons seized control of government business and on 4 September
  legislated to stop the possibility of a ‘no deal Brexit’.
• On 24 September 2019, the Supreme Court declared that Johnson’s prorogation of parliament had been illegal and
  that he must recall it.
• On three occasions Johnson failed to win parliamentary approval for an early general election under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
• The House of Commons eventually agreed to an early general election on 29 October.
  l In the December 2019 general election, Johnson ran a highly personal ‘Get Brexit Done’ campaign and secured an 80-seat parliamentary majority.
• Labour achieved its lowest share of seats since 1935, and most Conservative pro-European opponents of the prime minister either did not stand (Amber Rudd,
  Rory Stewart, Kenneth Clarke) or lost their seats (Dominic Grieve, David Gauke).
  l Johnson’s authority was further increased because many of the new cohort of Conservative MPs for former Labour
  ‘Red Wall’ seats owed a personal debt of loyalty to the prime minister for their victories. Consequently, Johnson
  was able to exert much more authority during his second administration than his first.
• Johnson’s Brexit withdrawal agreement quickly passed parliament (January 2020).
• Armed with a powerful majority, Johnson was also able to define the character of his second administration as one which would ‘level up’ the nation. In 2021, for example,
  he renamed the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
• The Covid pandemic crisis, which began in 2020, rather than undermining the prime minister may actually have increased his authority since Johnson’s regular speeches
  and updates provided a powerful sense of connectivity between the prime minister and the nation.
• Johnson’s resolute support of Ukraine when it was invaded by Russian forces in February 2022 further added to his
  reputation for strong leadership.
• However, by 2022, media allegations of illegal lockdown parties at Downing Street were beginning to dramatically
  undermine the authority of the prime minister.
• On 25 May 2022 the Sue Gray report on the No. 10 parties was highly critical of Downing Street, stating that ‘the
  public have a right to expect the very highest standards of behaviour in such places, and clearly what happened fell
  well short of this’.
• On 6 June 2022, 41% of Conservative MPs voted against the prime minister in a vote of confidence. The joint resignations of the chancellor of the exchequer, Rishi
  Sunak, and the health secretary, Sajid Javid, on 5 July then precipitated the collapse of the prime minister’s control over his government and he was forced to announce his resignation on 7 July 2022.
• On 5 September 2022, Johnson was succeeded by Liz
  Truss as prime minister.