Prime Minister and the Executive Flashcards
Evaluate the extent to which the prime minister controls the cabinet [30]
points
ministerial loyalty expected
pm prerogative powers
pm’s have been knifed
cabinet shapes legislative agenda
Evaluate the extent to which the prime minister controls the cabinet [30]
ministerial loyalty expected
YES 1 - MINISTERIAL LOYALTY EXPECTED
- Cabinet collective responsibility, ministers resign if they can’t ‘toe the party/PM line - united front = PM authority
- Boris Johnson, Raab, Davis etc.
COUNTER - Not honoured as previously, more common for blame to be delegated/shifted or for discontent ministers to stay put (e.g. Leavers such as Leadsom in May’s cabinet)
Evaluate the extent to which the prime minister controls the cabinet [30]
pm holds prerogative powers
YES 2 - PM HOLDS PREROGATIVE POWERS
- Hires, fires (Williamson 2019) promotes and reshuffles ministers (patronage) = risk to disobey/undermine
- Leader of foreign policy - negotiates treaties
- National spokesperson = authority
- Commander in chief
COUNTER - These powers are fading, democratically people desire cabinet consent at worst and parliamentary consent at best
Evaluate the extent to which the prime minister controls the cabinet [30]
pm’s have been knifed
NO 1 - PM’S HAVE BEEN KNIFED
- Over dominant PM’s can cause resentment = public lack of support/triggering of a party leader vote = undermining
- Margaret Thatcher by Home Secretary
- Tony Blair by the ‘Brownites’
COUNTER - Theresa May marched on for a while despite resignations, leaks and threats. No cabinet vote of confidence so PM leave on own terms
Evaluate the extent to which the prime minister controls the cabinet [30]
cabinet shapes legislative agenda
NO 2 - CABINET SHAPES LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
-Cabinet legitimises, interprets and presents official policy
-Cabinet organises when policies are implemented
-Cabinet can force a PM to switch policy if it can drum up enough support from outside (e.g. Cameron suspending collective responsibility for EU election 2016
COUNTER - Cabinet is not expected to debate but to approve policy ‘on the nod’ and PM chairs cabinet meetings and committees so sets agenda.
Evaluate the extent to which prime ministers have become more powerful in recent years. [30]
points
increasing numbers of special advisors
uncodified constitution
falling vote share
devolution
Evaluate the extent to which prime ministers have become more powerful in recent years. [30]
increasing numbers of special advisors
YES 1 - INCREASING NUMBER OF SPECIAL ADVISORS
An increase in the number of special advisers in Downing Street is also a good example for how Prime Ministers are seeing an increase in their power. Blair, famous for his reliance on personal advisers to run his sofa government, introduced the idea of truly presidential-style governance to the British political scene. Frequently special advisors, particularly those such as Alistair Campbell, were seen to be more prominent than many cabinet ministers. These unaccountable and unelected individuals were absolutely core to Blair’s administration and clearly acted for him, and not the cabinet. Thus, the increased usage of special advisors under Blair’s administration shows that prime ministerial power is growing in practicality.
COUNTER - Particularly dominant PM’s will be removed by the Cabinet, whilst the cabinet has no power of a vote of no confidence they can drive a PM out by refusing to support them publicly as seen with Blair 2007 or by provoking a leadership contest as occurred with Thatcher in 1990
Evaluate the extent to which prime ministers have become more powerful in recent years. [30]
uncodifed constitution
YES 2 - UNCODIFIED CONSTITUTION
Lastly, the lack of a codified constitution means that the Prime Minister can act with far greater power than perhaps initially conceived. The absence of clear, codified regulations and rules regarding cabinet government allows PMs, again such as Blair, to use cabinet as a political tool and briefing lobby rather than a tool of effective governance. Indeed, matters of economics and foreign policy – prominent fields within UK politics – are by convention still within the hands of the Prime Minister. The more brave and personal a PM is, the greater they can use, or possibly abuse, this power; for example, Blair was able to wage war in Iraq regardless of the opinion of both Parliament and his cabinet. Whilst there is no codified constitution in place, the powers of the Prime Minister are set primarily by vague conventions, and so the practical power of the Prime Minister could quickly grow to the point that any PM sees suitable. The highlighting of a lack of codified rules on governance by Blair’s administration in particular undoubtedly shows the powers of the Prime Minister are growing to a great extent.
COUNTER - In recent years, far from increasing powers, prime ministers have been relinquishing some of their prerogative powers. The Fixed Terms Parliament Act (2011) in effect disallowed the PM from calling a general election whenever he or she wished, thus arguably removing a very important political tool at their disposal. The same can be said when Blair, known for his ‘presidential style’ who gave up the power to appoint church leaders, appoint judges after the passing of the Constitutional Reform Act (2005) and removing the PM’s role in directly giving honours after the cash for honours scandal.
Evaluate the extent to which prime ministers have become more powerful in recent years. [30]
falling vote share
NO 1 - FALLING VOTE SHARE
- 1979, third party seats were at 11 and the two main parties won 95.8% of seats
- PM’s enjoy a Commons majority making their policy likely to pass easily
- This peaked in 2005 when third party seats won by the Lib Dems under Charles Kennedy were 62 and the two main parties won just 85.6% of seats
- However, some would say these parties are simply concerned with short term issues. E.g. UKIP concerned with Brexit seeing their 3.8 million votes in 2015 fall to just 590,000 in 2017. Furthermore, SNP concerned with Scottish Independence, following the 2016 Scotland Act which granted further powers to Scotland such as over taxation saw their votes fall from 56 in 2015 to 35 in 2017
- Overall, however, despite this drop third party seats in the recent election was 35, far higher than 11 in 1979 even despite the dip.
- Say how this has influence as shown in 2010 when Lib Dems formed coallition with Conservatives
- This is likely to increase further in upcoming elections due to fall out of brexit negotiations with both corbyn and may heavily blamed
Evaluate the extent to which prime ministers have become more powerful in recent years. [30]
devolution
NO 2 - DEVOLUTION
On the other hand, the increase in power devolution, such as the 1998 Scotland Act, directly takes power away from the Prime Minister. As a result of the bill, the Scottish Parliament can currently vary tax rates and control regional issues without going through the Westminster Parliament. This devolution was extended to Northern Ireland, London and Wales under Blair as well, who later wrote that he regretted the way in which devolution was carried out. He argued that dispersing power across Britain didn’t give him as much control over cultural issues and regional policy as much as he would have liked; a clear illustration of a Prime Minister’s power decreasing.
-COUNTER - Sovereignty lies with Westminster so in theory these powers can be revoked at any time
Evaluate the importance of collective cabinet responsibility?
points
strong, united government
single policy
dictatorial pm
too much power to cabinet, resignations dramatic
Evaluate the importance of collective cabinet responsibility?
strong, united government
YES IMPORTANT 1 - CREATES A STRONG AND DECISIVE GOVERNMENT
-As seen with the coalition 2010, which would be a time of confusion but a united front made it ok
Evaluate the importance of collective cabinet responsibility?
single policy
YES IMPORTANT 2 - CLEAR, SINGLE POLICY
-Cameron removed CCR with Brexit and the public has become confused with various different versions of Brexit (hard,soft, no deal etc.)
Evaluate the importance of collective cabinet responsibility?
dictatorial pm
NOT IMPORTANT 1 - TOO MUCH POWER TO PM CAN CREATE DICTATORIAL PM
-Largely, in times where of large Commons majorities, despite not being directly elected PM’S know they can act as they wish.
COUNTER - CABINET CAN REMOVE A DICTATORIAL PM E.G THATCHER AND BLAIR
- One of Thatcher’s ministers Nicholas Ridley - ‘she knew what she wanted and wasn’t going to have faint hearts in the cabinet stopping her’
- Blair announcing the 02 millenium dome on TV before telling cabinet
Evaluate the importance of collective cabinet responsibility?
too much power to cabinet, resignations dramatic
NOT IMPORTANT 2 - RESIGNATIONS DRAMATIC
- Due to CCR, resignations become serious events and can bring down the government causing uneccesary attention. Some say this places too much power with cabinet.
- e.g. 2 Brexit ministers resign under May (Raab, Davis) led to the country becoming annoyed.
COUNTER - May stayed on.
