The Prime Minister And The Cabinet

Question 1

The core executive:

Answer 1

The executive is the branch of government that makes things happen. It ‘executes’ the laws and decisions made in Parliament and runs the nation on a day-to-day basis. The prime minister is the leader of the executive branch.

Core executive: Policymaking network that includes the prime minister, senior ministers, cabinet committees and top civil servants.

Core executive key roles:
Making policy:
First, the executive set political priorities and decide upon policy at cabinet meetings/committees.
Second, (administrative part) civil service had the job of implementing these policies and running the state on a day to day basis.
Passing legislation:
major acts are first discussed and approved at cabinet level and then sent to parliament for debate and the final decision. Most of the time this is relatively straightforward due to the prime minister’s party having a Commons majority, exception for e.g Brexit.
Financing:
a key role of the executive, especially the Chancellor and the Treasury, is to make decisions on taxation and government spending. These decisions are normally announced in the annual budget. There is usually much discussion and negotiation between different ministers and departments over where and how taxpayers’ money is spent. Cabinet can be the forum where arbitration takes place, overseen by the prime minster.
National First Responder:
In times of national emergency such as war, terrorist outrages or the coronavirus pandemic, the executive is required to efficiently put together emergency measures to deal with the threat as best it can, and reassure the public and calm fears. Many of these situations require swift and crucial cooperation between departments and ministers.

Main powers of the executive:
- the appointment (and dismissal) of ministers by the prime minister, and other patronage powers.
- deployment of UK armed forces overseas
- relations with international powers and international diplomacy
- making and ratifying treaties
- the organisation and structure of the civil service
- issuing directives and statements during national crises and emergencies

Question 2

How significant are the prerogative powers of the executive?

Answer 2

Significant:
- The opportunity to deploy the armed forces overseas is clearly important. UK governments are not formally required to seek parliamentary approval for such actions, nor seek approval for any additional funding.
- Prime ministers enjoy unlimited choice over who joins and leaves their government. Unlike the US president, who must submit their cabinet nominations for formal approval from the Senate, there is no similar requirement in the UK. The presence of the Lords means that the prime minister can also select ministers who lack a democratic mandate.
- In times of national crisis, the executive and above all the prime minister deliver broadcasts, speeches and messages via social media to inform and reassure the public. Around 27 million people were estimated to have watched Boris Johnson’s broadcast message about the national lockdown during the COVID-19 crisis.
- The executive plays a crucial part in negotiating treaties and agreements with other nations in areas such as trade and defence, without these normally being subject to direct parliamentary approval.

Less significant:
- By convention, all recent military action overseas has been put before a vote in the Commons. This was true for the Gulf Wars and air strikes on Syria and Iraq.
- Prime ministers are constrained in their choice of ministers. They must appoint a cabinet that not only has some diversity in background but also includes individuals from a broad spectrum of the governing party. For example, Theresa May had to include both Remainers and Brexiteers in her cabinets. Few cabinet members come from the Lords.
- The executive and particularly the prime minister must also rely on parliament to pass relevant legislation such as anti-terror laws. The opposition will be quick to critique and monitor the executive’s response to emergencies.
- The Brexit saga shows how limited prerogative powers can be. A Supreme Court ruling forced the prime minister to submit any Brexit deal before parliament. In addition, even in foreign policy and diplomacy, the government is indirectly influenced by parliament, the media and public opinion.

Question 3

What does primus inter pares mean?

Answer 3

Latin term meaning first among equals. In respect of the prime minister, it implies he or she is the most important member of the cabinet, yet they govern in a collective manner.

Question 4

What are the roles of the prime minister?

Answer 4

Exercising the royal prerogative powers:
- managing the armed services
- making public appointments
- hiring and firing minsters, a patronage power. When taking over from David Cameron in 2016, Theresa May removed 15 ministers / when Boris Johnson took over in 2019 Eleven senior ministers were dismissed and a further six declined to serve. The top three offices were held by new incumbents, Dominic Raab at the Foreign Office, Priti Patel at the Home Office and Sajid Javid as chancellor - extremely controversial, + lots of criticism
- This powerful and largely unchecked power, do still have limitations, e.g prime ministers need to be careful to maintain a balance within the cabinet. This refers not only to diversity of gender, ethnicity etc, but also to policy positions. For example, Theresa May had to include both Leave and Remain supporters in her cabinets same way Tony Blair had to appoint John Prescott as Deputy PM, since his past (steward and waiter in the Merchant Navy and was the son of a miner) was seen to link to Labour’s working-class roots in a way that the public school educated Tony Blair could not.

Arrange + sometimes chair Cabinet meeting:
-able to chair cabinet meetings and organise the civil service

Leadership:
- shaping policy and acting as a spokesperson for the government

Working with parliament:
- setting the agenda in the queens speech and answering questions in parliament

Representing the UK:
- attending international summits as well as signing treaties

Powers of the prime minister:
- make treaties
- meet world leaders
- command the military
- run the civil service
- issue patronage and pardons
- control the legislative agenda
- make and amend delegated legislation Delegated legislation
- Secondary legislation allowing ministers to make decisions on how to
implement laws

Question 5

Presidentialism:

Answer 5

Presidentialism:
PM role has morphed into one of a far more autocratic and towering figure, and the traditional model of cabinet government being a forum of open and balanced debate has ceased to exist — a once venerable institution rendered into a powerless, compliant body full of ‘yes men and women’.

This accusation has mostly been associated with prime ministers Margret Thatcher (1979-90) Tony Blair (1997-2007)

Tony Blair:
- Former Northern Ireland secretary Mo Mowlam, one of TB’s former cabinet colleagues, stated in a 2002 BBC2 documentary Cabinet Confidential that she felt, ‘Cabinet itself is dead, it doesn’t have a function to play.’
- The Blair government was often accused of preferring ‘sofa government’, (where key decisions are made informally lacking transparency, accountability, and proper democratic processes) or informal chats involving two or three ministers including the prime minister, to full-length cabinet discussions.

Margret Thatcher:
- Thatcher’s leadership style was often criticized as being intolerant and overbearing because she tended to marginalize the “wets” individuals that were seen as too soft or compromising by Thatcher from positions of real influence, preferring to surround herself with loyal “dries” Thatcher’s staunch supporters who were fully committed to her policies who shared her economic philosophy. This created a perception that her cabinet was divided between those who fully endorsed the radical changes she was implementing, such as reducing the power of trade unions, privatizing state-owned industries, and cutting public spending and those who were sidelined for their dissenting views.

Question 6

Spatial leadership / SpAds: presidentialism.

Answer 6

spatial leadership:
- 2010–15 coalition government, a hung parliament where no single party had an outright majority. Consequently, the Conservatives, (David Cameron) and the Liberal Democrats, (Nick Clegg) agreed to form a coalition government to secure a working majority in the House of Commons, which by its very nature had to be based around a greater degree of consensus and compromise as it involved two parties sharing power.
- Some felt real power was concentrated on the four leading figures, known informally as ‘The Quad’. This comprised Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats), Chancellor George Osborne and the Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the treasury, Danny Alexander. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as ‘spatial leadership’, when a sense of distance is created between the prime minister and the rest of their government and party.
- In such situations, the prime minister relies to a great extent on a small inner circle of advisers. This smaller group of confidants is sometimes also known as a kitchen or inner cabinet - small core of ministers a prime minister particularly relies upon for advice or support, it reflects the relatively large size of the full cabinet, but also a tendency for the prime minister to seek ideas and support from ministers they particularly trust.

SpAds:
- much has been made in recent times of prime ministers relying too much on special advisers, or SpAds. Unlike permanent civil servants, SpAds are political and personal appointments made by prime ministers, who’s role has since risen in importance.
- They are policy advisers who are often believed to wield too much power over the prime minister at the expense of fellow ministers and the civil service.
1. Alastair Campbell: He was Tony Blair’s chief of staff and press secretary. He is known for his bluntness, exemplified by his interruption during an interview with Blair, where he said, “We don’t do God,” to avoid discussing Blair’s religious views
2. Dominic Cummings: He was a principal adviser to Boris Johnson. In January 2020, he wrote a blog post inviting “weirdos and misfits with odd skills” to apply for jobs in the Johnson government. This unconventional call aimed to attract people with unique talents, as well as those with more standard skills like data science and software development.
Cummings departure in November 2020, held a wide perception among both the public and sections of the Conservative Party, that he had become both too powerful an influence on the prime minister and a focus for constant criticism- this stemmed from a 260-mile trip he made to Durham during the height of the UK’s first national COVID-19 lockdown, and his subsequent explanation, which failed to convince many that he had acted responsibly and within the law

Question 7

Non presidentialism:

Answer 7

Arguments against presidentialism:
prime ministers with weak or non-existent parliamentary majorities are often lacking the stable support needed to effectively pass legislation and govern.**

Theresa May:
- May suffered two crushing defeats in January and March 2019 over her proposed Brexit deal. Earlier in July 2018, her deeply divided cabinet agreed the so-called ‘Chequers deal’ over Brexit. In the following days, two of the cabinet ministers who initially reluctantly agreed to the deal swiftly resigned: her own Brexit secretary, David Davis, and then foreign secretary Boris Johnson, who colourfully compared the proposed deal to ‘polishing a turd’.
- May failed to get her deal through and was effectively forced out of office, eventually resigning in June 2019. Her position as leader was severely weakened as not only was her own party deeply divided over the issue, but she also lacked an overall Commons majority and was dependent on the DUP socially conservative political party in Northern Ireland to get legislation through.

Enoch Powell (former conservative minister) shrewdly observed in a 1977 political biography that ‘All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.’ It would indeed be hard to identify a recent UK prime minister who has left office entirely at a time and in a nature of their own choosing.
—
This can be associated with the fact that even prime ministers with large majorities can find themselves imperilled. Following a growing impatience with their styles of leadership, both Thatcher and Blair were effectively forced out of office due to criticism and divides within their own party. This was due, not least, to controversial policies such as the poll tax (Thatcher) and the Iraq War (Blair). Loyalty on the backbenches is never guaranteed and always conditional. In addition, all prime ministers have to work through and with key ministerial colleagues, as was the case with Tony Blair and his chancellor, sometime rival and successor as prime minister, Gordon Brown.

Question 8

How far has the role of the PM changed in recent times?

Answer 8

greatly changed:

1. Several recent prime ministers, such as Thatcher and Blair, have been accused of running a more presidential style of leadership. It is claimed they frequently bypassed full cabinet meetings and discussions, preferring instead smaller gatherings of key ministers and advisers.
2. There has been a growth in the use of SpAds at the expense of seeking policy advice from the civil service.
3. The development of social media and ‘celebrity culture’ have arguably resulted in a growing focus on the personality and style of individuals rather than the wider cabinet. More demonstrably, this can be seen in the existence since 2010 of televised leaders’ debates as part of general election campaigns.
4. Increased media scrutiny and opportunities have led more prime ministers to focus on the popular media and take their message directly to the people, often preferring to appear on ‘soft format’ TV chat shows.

barely changed:

1. There have been no formal changes in the powers available to prime ministers in recent times. Twenty-first-century premiers possess the same prerogative powers as their predecessors. Indeed if anything, some powers have been reduced, including that of easily calling a fresh general election.
2. The ‘predominant premierships’ of Thatcher and Blair should be assessed alongside the more imperilled ones of John Major and Theresa May, and David Cameron’s coalition administration.
3. The influence of SpAds is probably somewhat exaggerated, and the importance of more traditional sources of policy advice, such as fellow ministers and the civil service, should not be overlooked. For example, when devising the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the most powerful advice came from medical experts such as the chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty.
4. Image-aware prime ministers are as likely to want to present themselves as collegiate and collaborative in their approach as they are to portray themselves as the sole and star player in the executive team. For example, during the COVID-19 emergency, Boris Johnson often appeared at media briefings with the chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance.

Question 9

How policy is made:

Answer 9

The factors affecting policy-making come from a variety of sources and
situations.

These include the following:
• Manifesto pledges and promises
• Personal convictions of the prime minister/party leader, although these are usually reflected in the point above
• Outcome of referendums
• Results of deals with minority/other coalition parties
• Responses to national crises and emergency situations, including economic, foreign affairs and medical
• Mounting pressure from the public and media
•Changing social and cultural attitudes

The power of the prime minister and Cabinet to dictate events and determine policy making varies depending on circumstances.

Case studies:

Introduction of the poll tax (1990):
- The poll tax was a flat-rate local tax introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s government.
- Nearly all adults would pay the same amount of poll tax.
- There were mass protests, violent riots, and many refused to pay.
- Thatcher failed to win the first round of a leadership challenge outright.
- She resigned because she could not count on the full support of her Cabinet or party.
- The poll tax was quickly ended.

Invasion of Iraq (2003):
- Following the 9/11 terror attacks, Tony Blair pledged to support US President George W. Bush in his ‘war against terror’.
- Blair wanted to join the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, as he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
- Two Cabinet ministers resigned over the issue: Robin Cook and Clare Short.
- More than a million people marched against the war.
- Parliament voted to support the invasion, but 25% of Labour MPs voted against, as did the Liberal Democrats.
- Reports of WMDs turned out to be based on weak intelligence.
- The war lasted much longer than expected, with a far greater cost in terms of lives and finance.
- Iraq spent years in a state of civil war, and the wider region was destabilised.
- Blair was subsequently re-elected, but his reputation never recovered.

Question 10

Reasons as to why the PM and cabinet cannot completely dominate and determine policy making:

Answer 10

Prime ministers and their cabinets only have partial control over events and decisions about policies, and there are many occasions when the executive has little or no control over either events or policy because power in a democratic system is shared and constrained by various institutions and actors:

1. Parliament: has the power to scrutinize, amend, and block legislation. The government needs parliamentary approval to pass laws and implement policies.
2. Judiciary: Courts can review the legality of government actions and policies. Judicial review ensures that the government acts within the law, and can overturn govt decisions that are found to be unlawful.
3. Civil service: permanent civil service implements government policies and influence policy through their expertise.
4. Media and Public opinion: Media scrutiny and public opinion can significantly influence government decisions.
5. Interest groups, lobbyists + NGO: influence policy through advocacy, research, and lobbying efforts and can mobilize public opinion and put pressure on the government.
6. International influences: Treaties, and foreign governments can impact domestic policies. The UK must comply with international agreements.
7. Political Parties: Internal party dynamics and factions can affect policy decisions. A PM must maintain party unity and manage differing opinions within their own party to ensure support for their agenda.
8. Devolved Governments: In the UK, devolved governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have control over certain policy areas. This devolution limits the central government’s control over these regions’ specific matters.

Question 11

The power of the prime minister and cabinet to dictate events and determine policy-making:

Answer 11

There are clear exceptions that clearly demonstrate how a prime minister/cabinet can dictate events and policy decisions.

These include the following:
1. The introduction of the poll tax in 1990 by Margaret Thatcher
2. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by Tony Blair
3. Theresa May’s decision to call an early election in 2017

Question 12

The comparison between the 3 key events of PM+Cabinet dominating policy making:

Answer 12

Similarities:
- Each case involved decisions taken directly by and personally associated with the individual prime minister.
- Each case appeared rational and logical at the outset.
- Each case represented a gamble — none ‘had’ to be undertaken in response to a particular crisis or to fulfil a major policy pledge, although the Conservatives had for a while promised to reform domestic rates.
- In all cases, the prime minister failed in the preliminary stages to consult widely and heed more closely the voices of caution within their party.
- Each decision ended in failure and contributed significantly to each leader’s resignation.

Differences:
- The poll tax was much more a ‘conviction’ policy, while the 2017 election was determined more by political and electoral considerations. The invasion of Iraq resulted from pressure from one of Britain’s closest overseas allies.
- The poll tax came at the tail end of a long-established premiership whereas the 2017 election was early on in Theresa May’s time as prime minister. The Iraq War was midway through Tony Blair’s premiership.
- The poll tax involved serious breaches of public order, with riots and violent protests, while the Iraq War claimed the lives of a significant number of British servicemen and women.
- The 2017 election decision was a more direct test of the prime minister’s abilities as a political campaigner compared to the poll tax and Iraq War.
- The Iraq War did not immediately end the Blair premiership. He went on to win the 2005 election, although his majority fell to 66 seats compared with the 167-seat majority gained in 2001.

Question 13

What is the cabinet and its functions?

Answer 13

The cabinet is a key component of the uk government, consisting of the prime minister and heads of government departments.

The cabinet:
• Maximum 22
• MUST be MP’s or Lords . Mostly department head
• Senior ministers
• PM only has one vote in the cabinet
• PM chairs the cabinet
• Votes on government policy

Functions of the cabinet:

Ratify decisions:
- Decisions made elsewhere (bilateral meetings, Cabinet committees etc.) should be formally ratified by the full Cabinet

Decision making:
- Major issues can still be decided on by a formal discussion and vote in a full Cabinet meeting

Settling disputes:
- Disputes between senior ministers or government departments can be resolved during a meeting of the full
Cabinet

Representing departments:
- Cabinet ministers are expected to champion the interests and needs of their departments

Advising the prime minister:
- Cabinet receives reports on parliamentary business, economic affairs, home and foreign issues.
Based on these reports, Cabinet ministers can seek clarification and give advice to the prime minister.

Question 14

The cabinet system:

Answer 14

Cabinet meetings:
- Usually once a week
- Fixed seating and structure
- Votes on issues where the prime minister is only one vote among all those cast and can therefore be defeated

Inner cabinet:
- Smaller group of the most important ministers who meet separately to the Cabinet
- Decisions may be made by inner cabinet before being discussed by the whole Cabinet
Meetings may be more informal, e.g. Tony Blair’s ‘sofa government’
The Coalition’s ‘Quad’ committee consisted of Conservatives David Cameron and George Osborne, and Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, and acted as an inner cabinet from 2010-15

Cabinet committees:
- Sub-committees appointed by the prime minister for specific issues, and take responsibility for a specific aspect of government, e.g. the National Security Committee.
- Smaller and more focused than full Cabinet meetings
- Prime minister decides membership of each committee
- Collective responsibility ministers must publicly support the decision of the government of the whole Cabinet applies to decisions made by Cabinet committees

The Cabinet Office:
- A civil service department that organises the Cabinet
- Cabinet secretariat carries out the key administration

Question 15

The powers and recourses of the cabinet:

Answer 15

Page 90

Question 16

Does the cabinet govt still exist?

Answer 16

Page 91.

Question 17

Does the cabinet govt still exist?

Answer 17

Page 91.

Question 18

The relationship between
prime minister and Cabinet:

Answer 18

Relationships between the prime minister and the Cabinet vary greatly depending on circumstances.

Factors influencing the relationship between prime minister and Cabinet:

PM free to appoint, promote or dismiss as he/she sees fit: The PM can appoint allies who will support his/her cause, e.g. David Cameron made his close ally George Osborne Chancellor of the Exchequer

Appointing rivals Detail:The PM may appoint political rivals to the Cabinet to ensure their support, e.g. Boris Johnson was given the role of Foreign Secretary in Theresa May’s Cabinet, until he resigned in July 2018

Developing rivalries: Rivalries within Cabinet may develop over time, e.g. Tony Blair initially had a strong partnership with his chancellor, Gordon Brown, but over time the Cabinet became divided between Blairites and Brownites.

Party division: Cabinet may be divided between members of the party who agree with the PM and those who do not, e.g. the divisions between Brexiteers and Remainers in May’s Cabinet

Coalition: The PM has to take greater care to ensure the support of Cabinet during periods of coalition, as the other party’s support is not guaranteed, e.g. David Cameron had to ensure that Liberal Democrat ministers in his Cabinet agreed with his policies

The power of the PM: Prime ministers who enjoy a large majority and strong party support can dominate their Cabinet, e.g. Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher. Such PMs may be accused of presidentialism Weak leaders who lack a majority or significant party support struggle to control their Cabinet, e.g. Theresa May

Primus inter pares: The PM is ‘first among equals’ The PM can be outvoted by his/her Cabinet or even forced out of office, e.g. Margaret Thatcher after she finally lost the support of her Cabinet in 1990

Challenging events: Contentious events can create divisions within Cabinet, e.g. two Cabinet ministers resigned from Blair’s Cabinet in protest against the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Presidentialism
A style of
leadership that focuses on behaving like a president, separate from Parliament, rather than as one among equals in the Cabinet or Parliament. Prime ministers can use the Downing Street machine, bilateral meetings and agenda setting to dominate the Cabinet system.

Primus inter pares
A Latin term that means ‘first among equals’. It is used to describe the prime minister’s status in the Cabinet.

Question 19

The significance of Collective responsibility:

Answer 19

• Government ministers all share the same degree of responsibility, collective responsibility.

The importance of collective responsibility:
- Collective responsibility enables the government to speak with one voice and present a united front to parliament, the public and the media.
- Collective responsibility requires all ministers, to support and defend government policy in public, otherwise governments would appear chaotic / openly divided / incompetent.
- It does not prevent, strong debates and divisions during cabinet meetings, but ‘what happens in cabinet stays in cabinet’.
- Those who cannot accept the burden of collective responsibility are obliged to resign and air their misgivings from the backbenches. - That is not to say that collective responsibility is watertight or unbreakable.

• Cabinet Manual formally puts it: ‘All members of the government are bound by the convention of collective responsibility’
  However, there have been several occasions when this principle has been temporarily suspended.

These have included:
- during the referendums in 1975 and 2016 over Britain’s continued membership of the EU
- 2016, over the government’s plans to build a third runway at Heathrow
- During the 2011 alternative vote referendum
In all these cases, public disagreement was only permitted on these specific topics and not on other issues. They were policy areas where it was widely apparent that individual ministers held opposing views.

Examples of collective responsibility:
- Iain Duncan Smith resigned as work and pensions secretary in David Cameron’s Cabinet in 2016 on the basis that he could not support the government’s cuts to disability benefits.
- Andrea Leadsom resigned as leader of the House of Commons in Theresa May’s Cabinet in May 2019 because she could not support the government’s Bill for leaving the European Union, arguing that a hard Brexit would be better for Britain.

The prime minister may relax the rules on collective ministerial responsibility in the following circumstances:
- during referendums
- during coalitions
- during a free vote on a major issue
- to retain a key minister in the government Between 2016 and 2018, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson wrote articles and gave interviews contradicting government policy. The Independent reported he told Tory supporters at a private dinner that gloomy economic forecasts were “mumbo jumbo” and downplayed the Northern Irish border issue and potential disruptions to food and medicine supplies. Despite these breaches of collective responsibility, Theresa May didn’t discipline him, perhaps fearing he’d be even more troublesome on the backbenches.

Therefore, collective responsibility means that:
1. Cabinet discussion and disagreements are kept secret in order to come across united and capable- gain public trust.
2. Decisions made by the Cabinet are binding on all ministers; anyone not accepting must resign.
3. If the government is removed by a confidence vote, all ministers must resign.

Slayyyyy!

Question 20

Individual and ministerial responsibility:

Answer 20

In addition to collective responsibility, ministers are responsible both individually and collectively for their actions and their department’s actions. They must answer to the prime minister, parliament, and the public, and they may resign if they fail in these responsibilities.

Key concepts
1. Individual Responsibility: This means each minister is personally accountable for their own actions and decisions.

2. Ministerial Accountability: This means that ministers are responsible for what happens in their departments. They must answer to the prime minister, parliament, and the public for these actions. Ministerial accountability is an example of how parliament seeks to scrutinise the executive. Ministers are expected to be open and honest in their dealings with parliament. For example, in March 2020 the speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, criticised Chancellor Rishi Sunak for first announcing a £350 billion package of aid to businesses during the COVID-19 crisis on a live televised briefing as opposed to in parliament.

There are five main occasions when ministers resign from government:
• Accepting the blame for an error or injustice within their department by civil servants and officials
• Unwillingness to accept collective responsibility over policy
• Personal misconduct
• Political pressure
• An inability to deliver a policy promise in their own department
Ministers nearly never fall because of policy failure. This is for the simple reason that all major policy is agreed and decided upon by cabinet collectively and with the support of the prime minister. To admit that the policy itself was flawed (as opposed to how it was actually carried out) is to suggest that the whole government failed and must share the blame collectively.

1. Accepting the blame within a department is rare for ministers, when often they blame civil servants or agency heads for operational failures and avoid responsibility for errors. For example, ministers kept their jobs after departmental mistakes in the sale of arms to Iraq (1996) and the BSE crisis (2000)
   Contrary:
   Claire Perry resigned as rail minister in 2016, admitting her department’s failure to address reliability and overcrowding issues. She expressed shame and suggested her resignation might help
   - Civil servants have been seen increasingly taking personal blame for departmental mistakes: In 2011, Brodie Clark, head of the UK Border Force, resigned after unauthorised relaxation of border controls / In 2020, Sally Collier, head of Ofqual, resigned following the exams fiasco, while Education Secretary Gavin Williamson remained in post
2. Ministers sometimes resign because they strongly disagree with a policy, even if it’s not in their department. This doesn’t happen often because 1) parties generally share policies and 2) resignations often come about through reactions to unforeseen events or reflect long simmering divides within a party.
   For example Two Liberal Democrat junior ministers, Mike Crockart and Jenny Willott, resigned in 2010 rather than support the government policy of increasing university tuition fees to £9,000 a year / 30 Conservative ministers resigned over Theresa May’s Brexit deal, including two Brexit secretaries, David Davis and Dominic Raab
   An unusual variant of resignation in this category was one over personality rather than policy: resignation of Scotland Office minister Douglas Ross in May 2020. He resigned in protest at the failure of the prime minister’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, to resign over apparent breaches of the first COVID-19 lockdown. He was quoted as saying: ‘I have constituents who didn’t get to say goodbye to loved ones…people who didn’t visit sick relatives because they followed the guidance of the government. I cannot in good faith tell them they were all wrong and one senior adviser to the government was right.’
   Case study: * Former Labour foreign secretary (1997 to 2001) Robin Cook commented on Blair government’s Iraq policy and the proposal to invade Saddam Hussien, who was accused of having weapons of mass destruction. Cook urged that Britain should work with its European partners + UN, and not go out on a limb with the USA. However, the government joined USA in the war, due to US pressure and especially that of its president, George W. Bush, with whom Blair had a close relationship. Cook delivered a powerful speech in the Commons after his resignation, stating that he was committed to his concern of embarking in a war without broad international support.*
3. Inability to deliver a policy promise in their own department
   is a relatively rare cause of ministerial resignation. It can occur because a minister feels they have been undermined by other Whitehall departments or a change in government policy that directly concerns their department, for example February 2020, Sajid Javid as chancellor, just 4 weeks away from delivering his first budget, rejected the prime minister’s order to fire his team of aides, saying ‘no self-respecting minister’ could accept such a condition.
4. Personal Misconduct the most common reason of resignation, mainly based on: selflessness:must act solely on the publics interest and not their own.
   Integrity: must avoid people/organisations that try inappropriately to influence them in their work, therefore not act or take decisions in order to gain benefits for themselves, effectively steer from all kinds of corruption.
   Objectivity: must act / take decisions impartially and fairly, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias, when awarding contracts, making appointments or providing public services.
   Accountability: must be accountable to public/parliament for their decisions + actions and submit themselves to scrutiny necessary to ensure this, meaning that they reply truthfully to any questions in parliament.
   Openness: should always take decisions in an open/transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public (unless clear/lawful reasons for doing so e.g national security or sensitive commercial information).
   Honesty: be truthful with both parliament and the public.
   Leadership: exhibit principles in their own behaviour, should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour.
   December 2017, Damian Green, first secretary of state and minister for the Cabinet Office, dismissed after he lied to colleagues over pornography found on his computer. He was accused of sending suggestive text messages and ‘fleetingly’ touching the knee of Kate Maltby. This broke the honesty principle of the Ministerial Code / Conservative MP Brooks Newmark left after being exposed for sending explicit images to an undercover reporter, breaking both the selflessness and leadership principles of the Ministerial Code
   However:
   But do ministers have to resign if they are found guilty of breaking the Ministerial Code? The short answer is no. November 2020, home secretary, Priti Patel, found breaking code by bullying and swearing at senior civil servants in her department. Allegations against Patel emerged in March after the resignation of Philip Rutnam, (former Home Office permanent secretary) over what he described as a
   ‘vicious and orchestrated campaign’ against him for challenging the alleged mistreatment of civil servants. Cabinet Office inquiry was launched, its leaked findings found that Patel had ‘not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect’. However, she retained the confidence of the prime minister and much of the parliamentary party, hence only required to issue an apology and received an official warning. Sir Alex Allan, Whitehall’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, subsequently resigned in protest at the prime minister’s inaction.
   Political Pressure: over a period of time, a minister has increasingly become too embroiled in controversy and negative publicity, making it hard for a prime minister to resist calls for the minister-in-question’s resignation, hence it may not be a single policy issue or scandal, but a result of mounting and eventually overwhelming pressure. For example plebgate: * September 2012, Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell was told to dismount and walk his bike through a pedestrian entrance at Downing Street, leading to a heated exchange with a police officer. The officer claimed Mitchell had said “Best you learn your fking place — you don’t run this fking government — you’re fking plebs,” which Mitchell denied, though he admitted to not treating the police with respect. The incident, dubbed “Plebgate,” became a major distraction, and Mitchell resigned in October 2012. The scandal fed into negative stereotypes of David Cameron’s government as elitist, because of 1) Mitchell’s destination being the elite Carlton Club, exacerbated this “elitist” crisis, 2) Mitchell’s Eton and Oxford educated sent out further elitist messages to the public, after his alleged use of the socially derogatory term “pleb”
   Occasionally there can be genuine personal reasons for resignation: In September 2020, Simon Clark resigned as minister for regional growth and local government citing ‘balancing my own life against the demands of office’. No scandal here, no political pressure to quit and no clash over policy. This is perhaps a reminder of the heavily pressurised nature of ministerial office.

Question 21

The accountability of the prime minister and cabinet to parliament:

Answer 21

Although modern prime ministers have often been accused of being presidential, the fact remains that they are still accountable to parliament. This involves regular appearances at question time, attending select committees and making ministerial statements before the Commons.
However, there is some debate as to how well this works in practice.

Is the executive largely unaccountable to parliament?

Yes:
- Answers in parliament, especially PMQs, often favour style over substance. Ministers often choose to avoid difficult and probing questions.
- The principles can be open to interpretation. Ministers often claim they were unaware of an error, and if they have the backing of the prime minister, are unlikely to resign.
- Select committees have relatively little power and an unconvincing or evasive performance is no guarantee of dismissal.
- Most of the time, party loyalty is guaranteed — not only because of party discipline, but also due to a desire to prevent opponents gaining ground. Few on their own benches openly criticise or attack ‘their’ executive.

No:
- Ministers from the prime minister down are subject to regular grilling at ministerial questions and PMQs. The televising of these occasions makes a poor performance have even more impact.
- All members of the executive must follow the principles on standards expected in public life as set out in the Ministerial Code. This includes giving honest and accurate information to parliament and not knowingly misleading parliament or the public.
- Ministers appear before select committees and must be honest and truthful in the hearings, which can often be probing and inquisitorial in nature.
- The prime minister above all must retain the support of the parliamentary party. Where this becomes weak, a prime minister’s position can eventually become untenable. Some former ministers, such as Heseltine, Howe and Cook, have proved very effective in undermining and exposing the flaws in a leader from their own party.

Question 22

Summary of PM + The Cabinet.

Answer 22

• The core executive comprises the prime minister, cabinet, cabinet committees and senior civil servants.

• The post of prime minister has become increasingly presidential, but clear differences remain between the role and the powers of most presidents.

• Policy-making in government is influenced by several factors including fulfilling manifesto promises and responding to crises and popular pressure.

• Prime ministers and the cabinet can only dictate events and decide policy to a limited extent. When they make free choices, such as with the poll tax, invasion of Iraq and calling an early election, they are often taking major political gambles that do not always pay off.

• The relationship between prime ministers and their cabinet can be quite complicated and strained, and much depends on personalities and political circumstances.

• Individual and collective ministerial responsibility are different. Individual responsibility applies to ministers taking responsibility for their actions and the decisions taken within their departments. Collective responsibility involves all ministers publicly defending government decisions.

• Ministers resign for many reasons, including policy differences and breaching the Ministerial Code.

• The prime minister and the cabinet are accountable to parliament in a number of ways including via question time, select committees and the confidence of their own party in parliament.