The Prime Minister And The Cabinet Flashcards
Introduction: key points.
- The prime minister and their cabinet constitute the government or executive of the uk. They are the main source of policy making and parliamentary legislation.
- Although prime ministers enjoy considerable freedom, such as their ability to choose ministers, they can also be vulnerable, especially if they only have a small Commons majority or are faring badly in the polls.
- All members of the government (and especially the cabinet) must, in public at least, display loyalty to the prime minister and defend all aspects of government policy.
- Many of the powers of the prime minister tend to be variable, not least
according to the prevailing political climate.
Key concepts:
- Prime minister: The first or leading minister, the head of government.
- Cabinet: Group of around 20–25 senior ministers who meet regularly, usually weekly. The cabinet is chaired by the prime minister and is the key decision-making body in UK government.
- Primus inter pares: 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.
- Core executive: The collective term for the key players in government policy making. It comprises the prime minister, the cabinet and its various committees, the Cabinet Office and senior civil servants.
How is the Prime Minister chosen ?
How is the Prime Minister Chosen?
In the UK, the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public, unlike the US president. Instead, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that has the most seats in the House of Commons following a general election. Technically, it is the monarch who invites the leader of the majority party to form and lead the government. However, convention dictates that the monarch must summon the leader who is most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons.
In cases where the election result is unclear, such as in 2017 when no party won an overall majority, the monarch must act carefully and adhere to these conventions. For example, after the 2017 general election, Theresa May, as leader of the largest party, was invited to form a government, despite losing her overall majority. She was able to secure a “confidence and supply” arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to remain in office.
Prime ministers can also leave office in various ways. Some are voted out following an election defeat. Others, such as Harold Wilson in 1976, retire for personal reasons like health concerns. In some cases, pressure from within their own party can make a prime minister’s position untenable. Theresa May, for instance, became Prime Minister in 2016 after winning the Conservative leadership contest, which was limited to Conservative MPs and party members, as her rival Andrea Leadsom withdrew. Similarly, Boris Johnson became Conservative leader in 2019 after defeating Jeremy Hunt in a party member vote. These types of leadership elections often leave prime ministers without a direct personal mandate, prompting them to call a general election in an attempt to secure public endorsement. Both May and Johnson called elections partly to gain support for their handling of Brexit.
May’s election as Conservative leader and Prime Minister in 2016 is an example of how party members can play a key role in selecting a prime minister mid-term, though this opportunity is not available if the leadership race is uncontested.
Confidence and supply:
- An arrangement whereby one party, in this instance the DUP, agrees to support the governing party on key votes such as the budget and any votes of no confidence. It is different to a more formal coalition deal when the coalition parties share government and ministerial roles
Prime minister main roles and functions:
The prime minister is the head of the executive (government), chair of the cabinet and in charge of the civil service. The role includes:
- leading the government, with overall responsibility for both domestic and foreign policy
- selecting the cabinet and all junior government posts + being the dominant figure in the core executive
- representing the country abroad; attending international gatherings of world leaders, e.g. G7 summits; and hosting UK-based international gatherings, such as the 2021 Glasgow COP26 conference on climate change
- being the party leader
- being the main ‘defender and explainer’ of government policy and actions in both parliament and the media
- chairing cabinet meetings + heading up the civil service
- being the monarch’s first minister and primus inter pares with other ministers.
What is the core executive?
The Core Executive
The Prime Minister is not the only key figure in government. The core executive includes the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, senior civil servants, cabinet committees, and the Cabinet Office.
Policy-making is shaped by a network of actors, each with its own influence and resources. Power in this system is often based on interdependence rather than direct command. While much of the core executive is political and changes with the government, the civil service remains politically neutral, with senior officials usually staying in post regardless of which party is in power.
distinguish between the terms ‘executive’ (prime minister and cabinet) and core executive (prime minister, cabinet and its various committees, Cabinet Office and senior civil servants). The core executive is a more wide-ranging term and usefully suggests how power is spread beyond the immediate circle of ministers and prime minister.
What are the key roles of the core executive?
Key Roles of the Core Executive
- Making Policy – The executive sets political priorities and formulates policy, often in cabinet meetings or committees. The civil service then implements these policies and manages daily governance.
- Passing Legislation – While parliament approves all laws, major bills are first discussed and agreed upon at cabinet level before being presented for debate. A government with a Commons majority usually faces little resistance, though contentious issues like Brexit can complicate the process.
- Financing – The executive, particularly the Chancellor and Treasury, decides on taxation and government spending, announced in the annual budget. Ministers and departments negotiate over funding allocations, with the prime minister and cabinet overseeing disputes.
- National Crisis Response – In emergencies like war, terrorism, or pandemics, the executive coordinates swift action and reassures the public. Handling crises such as COVID-19 required collaboration between multiple departments, including health, law enforcement, education, and finance.
Where do the main executive powers come from ?
Many executive powers come from the royal prerogative, which were once held by the monarch but are now exercised by the government. These include:
• Ministerial Appointments – The prime minister appoints and dismisses ministers, exercising patronage powers.
• Military Deployment – The executive controls the deployment of UK armed forces overseas.
• Foreign Relations – The government conducts diplomacy and manages relations with international powers.
• Treaty Making – The executive negotiates and ratifies international treaties.
• Civil Service Organisation – The government determines the structure and leadership of the civil service.
• Crisis Management – In national emergencies, the executive issues directives and statements.
Beyond prerogative powers, the executive controls the legislative agenda and sets the parliamentary timetable, allowing it to shape policy. However, all decisions must be lawful to prevent arbitrary government. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Boris Johnson’s ‘stay at home’ order required the Coronavirus Act 2020 to give legal force to lockdown measures, such as fines for non-compliance.
While the executive holds significant prerogative powers, it cannot act without limits. Parliamentary approval is often crucial, and the government’s ability to pass legislation depends on its control of parliament. However, when the executive holds a strong majority, it usually faces little resistance in implementing its policies.
How significant are the prerogative powers of the executive?
Significant:
- Military Deployment: The government can deploy UK armed forces without parliamentary approval or additional funding approval.
- Ministerial Appointments: The prime minister has full discretion over who joins or leaves the government, unlike the US president, who requires Senate confirmation. This includes appointing unelected ministers from the House of Lords.
- Crisis Management: In national emergencies, the prime minister directly communicates with the public. For example, Boris Johnson’s COVID-19 lockdown address reached an estimated 27 million viewers.
- Treaty Negotiations: The executive negotiates international treaties and agreements on trade and defence without requiring direct parliamentary approval.
Less Significant:
• Parliamentary Constraints on Military Action: By convention, military interventions are now put to a Commons vote, as seen in the Gulf Wars and air strikes on Syria and Iraq.
- Limits on Ministerial Appointments: Prime ministers must balance their cabinet, often appointing individuals from different party factions (e.g., May’s mix of Remainers and Brexiteers). Most ministers are also elected MPs, limiting reliance on Lords appointees.
- Legislative Dependence: The executive needs parliament to pass key laws, such as anti-terror legislation, and faces scrutiny from the opposition.
- Brexit and Legal Constraints: The Supreme Court ruled that the prime minister had to present any Brexit deal to parliament, limiting executive power.
- Indirect Influence: Even in foreign policy, the government is shaped by parliamentary scrutiny, media pressure, and public opinion.
While prerogative powers grant the executive significant autonomy, parliamentary oversight, political constraints, and legal requirements limit their absolute control.
Have the formal powers of the prime minister changed ?
While the formal powers of the prime minister have remained largely the same, the role itself has evolved significantly. Reflections from past prime ministers highlight key aspects of the job:
• The prime minister cannot simply demand obedience but must persuade and manage colleagues.
• Tough decisions, both in policy and ministerial appointments, are often necessary.
• Success in the role requires adaptability and learning on the job.
• The position allows for different leadership styles, making it inherently flexible.
What are the key accusations of presidentialism?
Accusations of Presidentialism
A key criticism of modern UK prime ministers is that they have become more presidential, centralising power and diminishing the traditional role of cabinet government. Critics argue that prime ministers increasingly operate as dominant, almost autocratic figures, sidelining ministers and relying on small inner circles of advisers.
Margaret Thatcher (1979–1990)
• Often accused of running a highly centralised government, marginalising dissenting ministers.
• Her cabinet was divided into “wets” (moderates, often excluded from influence) and “dries” (Thatcher loyalists).
• Ministers who challenged her, such as Geoffrey Howe, were sidelined or forced out, culminating in her downfall after his resignation in 1990.
Tony Blair (1997–2007) and ‘Sofa Government’
• Blair’s leadership was criticised for bypassing formal cabinet discussions in favour of informal decision-making with a few trusted ministers.
• Former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam stated in Cabinet Confidential (2002) that “Cabinet itself is dead, it doesn’t have a function to play.”
• The Blair government was accused of relying on a kitchen cabinet—a small group of close advisers—including figures like Alastair Campbell (chief of staff and press secretary).
• Blair’s style was reinforced by his large parliamentary majority, which allowed him to push policies with little cabinet resistance.
Coalition Government (2010–2015) and ‘The Quad’
• Despite the coalition requiring greater compromise, real power was concentrated in The Quad:
• David Cameron (Prime Minister)
• Nick Clegg (Deputy Prime Minister)
• George Osborne (Chancellor)
• Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury)
• This reinforced the idea of an inner circle holding power rather than full cabinet discussions.
Spatial Leadership and the Rise of Special Advisers (SpAds)
• Spatial leadership describes how prime ministers create distance between themselves and both their government and party, relying instead on a select few advisers.
• Special advisers (SpAds)—political appointees rather than neutral civil servants—have grown in influence since Harold Wilson first introduced them in the 1960s.
• SpAds often hold significant power:
• Alastair Campbell (Blair’s chief of staff) was so influential that he interrupted an interview, declaring “We don’t do God” when Blair was asked about his Christian faith.
• Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were key SpAds to Theresa May, shaping her policies and handling political strategy.
• Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s senior adviser, was seen as the mastermind of Brexit strategy and key government decisions. In 2020, he controversially called for “weirdos and misfits with odd skills” to apply for government roles.
The Cummings Controversy and SpAds’ Growing Power
• Under Boris Johnson, the number of SpAds rose to 108, up from 99 under Theresa May.
• Many were longtime associates of Johnson, such as:
• Sir Eddie Lister (chief strategic adviser)
• Munira Mirza (director of No.10 Policy Unit)
• Cummings’ influence became a liability in 2020 when he breached COVID-19 lockdown rules by travelling 260 miles to Durham.
• His explanation failed to convince the public or many Conservative MPs, leading to his resignation in November 2020.
• His departure reinforced concerns that SpAds were wielding excessive power, bypassing both cabinet ministers and civil servants.
Conclusion
The accusation of presidentialism stems from prime ministers increasingly sidelining cabinet, centralising decision-making, and relying on unelected advisers. While figures like Thatcher and Blair had strong leadership styles, the rise of SpAds and inner cabinets suggests a long-term shift away from traditional collective responsibility toward a more individualistic, presidential style of governance.
What are the key cases against presidentialism ?
The Case Against Presidentialism in the UK Prime Ministership
- Prime Ministers Depend on Parliamentary Support
Unlike a US president, a UK prime minister is not directly elected by the people. Instead, they must maintain the confidence of Parliament, meaning their power is limited by party divisions, opposition pressure, and the need for legislative approval.
Example: Theresa May and Brexit (2016–2019)
• May failed to get her Brexit deal through Parliament, suffering two crushing defeats in January and March 2019.
• Her position weakened further when her divided cabinet reluctantly agreed to the ‘Chequers deal’ (July 2018), only for key ministers like Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson to resign.
• Without a Commons majority and reliant on the DUP for support, she was ultimately forced out of office in June 2019.
• This highlights how even a determined prime minister can be blocked by their own party and Parliament, showing that presidential-style rule is not possible in the UK system.
⸻
- Even Strong Prime Ministers Face Internal Party Pressure
Even prime ministers with large parliamentary majorities can lose power due to internal party divisions, proving they are not all-powerful leaders like a president.
Example: Margaret Thatcher (1979–1990)
• Known for her strong centralised leadership style, Thatcher was accused of ruling without cabinet consensus, especially after she introduced the unpopular Poll Tax (1989–1990).
• Growing opposition from her own party led to a leadership challenge in 1990, and she was forced to resign.
• This demonstrates that no UK prime minister can govern indefinitely without party support, unlike a US president, who serves a fixed term.
Example: Tony Blair (1997–2007) and the Iraq War
• Blair’s ‘sofa government’ approach was criticised for sidelining the cabinet and making decisions with a small group of advisors.
• His decision to support the Iraq War (2003) sparked deep divisions in the Labour Party, leading to growing opposition from MPs.
• By 2007, Blair’s position had become untenable, and he resigned under pressure from Labour MPs and Gordon Brown’s supporters.
• This reinforces the idea that prime ministers cannot remain in office without party support, unlike a president who cannot be removed by party pressure alone.
⸻
- The Power of the Cabinet and Key Ministers
While some prime ministers have dominated decision-making, they still rely on key ministers and cannot completely ignore the cabinet.
Example: Blair vs Gordon Brown
• As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown was one of the most powerful ministers in Blair’s government.
• Despite Blair’s presidential-style leadership, Brown controlled economic policy and was seen as his rival and eventual successor.
• This shows that even strong prime ministers must share power with senior ministers, unlike a US president, who has full executive control.
Example: May vs Boris Johnson (2018–2019)
• While serving as Foreign Secretary, Johnson frequently undermined May’s leadership, particularly on Brexit policy.
• His resignation in July 2018 over the Chequers deal weakened May further, showing that prime ministers cannot ignore internal opposition without consequences.
- Prime Ministers Can Be Removed by Their Own Party
Unlike a US president, who can only be removed through impeachment, UK prime ministers can be forced out by their party.
Example: Boris Johnson (2019–2022) and the Partygate Scandal
• Despite winning a landslide election in December 2019, Johnson’s popularity collapsed in 2022 due to scandals like Partygate (COVID-19 rule-breaking in Downing Street).
• By July 2022, over 50 ministers resigned, leaving him with no choice but to step down.
• This shows that UK prime ministers are accountable to their party and Parliament, unlike a US president, who cannot be removed simply because their party no longer supports them.
⸻
- The Role of the Civil Service
Prime ministers cannot act alone—they rely on the civil service and government institutions, which act as a check on their power.
Gerald Kaufman (1980), ‘How to Be a Minister’
• Kaufman described how ministers must work with the system, rather than trying to control everything themselves.
• His argument suggests that prime ministers cannot govern without institutional cooperation, unlike a US president, who has executive authority over federal agencies.
Overall argument for presidentialism:
Conclusion: Why the UK Prime Minister is Not Presidential
• Prime ministers depend on Parliament—they cannot rule alone like a president.
• Internal party opposition can remove a prime minister, as seen with Thatcher (1990), Blair (2007), May (2019), and Johnson (2022).
• Cabinet ministers and key figures like Gordon Brown or Boris Johnson can challenge a prime minister’s authority.
• The civil service provides an institutional check on power, preventing prime ministers from acting like presidents.
Final Verdict: The UK Prime Minister May Have a Presidential Style, But They Are Not a President
• Some strong prime ministers (Thatcher, Blair, Johnson) may appear presidential, but their power is always conditional on party support and parliamentary approval.
• Unlike a US president, they can be removed at any time by their party or a vote of no confidence.
Thus, while some prime ministers act presidentially, the UK’s system remains firmly parliamentary.
DEBATE How far has the role of prime minister changed in recent times?
How Far Has the Role of Prime Minister Changed in Recent Times?
The Role Has Changed Significantly
1. Move Toward a Presidential Style of Leadership
• Thatcher (1979–1990) and Blair (1997–2007) were accused of adopting a presidential approach, bypassing cabinet and making key decisions with a small inner circle.
• Blair’s ‘sofa government’ relied on SpAds (Special Advisers) rather than traditional cabinet discussion.
• Johnson (2019–2022) similarly preferred direct control over decision-making, famously relying on SpAds like Dominic Cummings rather than full cabinet consultation.
2. Rise of Special Advisers (SpAds) Over the Civil Service
• The increased reliance on SpAds has weakened the traditional role of civil servants in policymaking.
• Blair’s Alastair Campbell and Johnson’s Dominic Cummings played major roles in shaping government strategy, sidelining career civil servants.
• This shift has arguably undermined the traditional collective decision-making model of cabinet government.
3. Growth of Media Influence & Image-Focused Leadership
• The rise of social media and ‘celebrity culture’ has changed the way prime ministers engage with the public.
• Since 2010, televised leaders’ debates in general elections have focused attention on individual party leaders rather than their teams.
• Johnson’s focus on media appearances (such as interviews on popular TV shows) and his use of social media show a shift toward more direct engagement with the public, similar to a US president.
4. Greater Focus on Prime Ministerial Personality
• Modern elections are increasingly leader-focused, with charismatic figures like Blair and Johnson dominating campaigns.
• The Boris Johnson ‘brand’ played a crucial role in the 2019 general election, where voters were encouraged to vote based on his personality rather than Conservative Party policies.
⸻
The Role Has Barely Changed
1. No Formal Change in Prime Ministerial Powers
• The legal powers of the prime minister have not changed significantly.
• The Royal Prerogative (e.g., appointing ministers, commanding the armed forces) remains unchanged.
• If anything, some powers have been reduced, such as the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, which initially made it harder for a PM to call an early election (though it was later repealed in 2022).
2. Constraints from Parliament & Party
• Prime ministers are still dependent on Parliament and their party.
• Theresa May (2016–2019) struggled to pass Brexit legislation because she lacked a majority and relied on the DUP.
• Cameron (2010–2016) had to govern within a coalition with the Liberal Democrats (2010–2015), significantly limiting his autonomy.
• Boris Johnson (2019–2022), despite winning a large majority, was ultimately forced to resign due to internal party pressure.
3. SpAds Are Not as Powerful as They Seem
• While SpAds have grown in influence, they are not the final decision-makers.
• During COVID-19, Boris Johnson relied more on scientific experts like Professor Chris Whitty than political SpAds.
• The traditional role of civil servants and ministers remains crucial in policymaking.
4. Prime Ministers Still Need to Show Collegial Leadership
• Even modern prime ministers cannot govern alone and must be seen as team players.
• During COVID-19, Johnson regularly appeared alongside medical and scientific advisers (e.g., Sir Patrick Vallance), showing a need for shared decision-making rather than pure presidentialism.
⸻
Conclusion: Has the Role Changed?
• Yes, it has changed:
• More presidential leadership styles (Thatcher, Blair, Johnson).
• Greater reliance on SpAds and direct media engagement.
• Increased focus on personality rather than policy.
• No, it has not changed:
• Legal powers remain the same—Parliament can still check the PM’s power.
• Party control matters—May, Cameron, and Johnson were all limited by their party’s influence.
• Civil servants and ministers still play a key role in policy decisions.
Ultimately, while modern media and leadership styles have made prime ministers seem more presidential, their actual power remains limited by Parliament, their party, and the constraints of collective government.
What are the differing opinions on presidentialism ?
Opinions differ as to how far the post of prime minister has become more presidential. In his 2000 work The British Presidency, Michael Foley wrote: ‘The British prime minister has evolved, and is evolving, away from what a prime minister used to do and used to be…British politics has accommodated and adjusted to a distinctive presidential dimension.’
KNOWLEDGE CHECK
4 What are special advisers and why are they often controversial?
5 What is meant by a presidential style with reference to the prime minister?
6 What do the terms ‘sofa
government’ and ‘spatial leadership’ mean?
On the other hand, others are less certain about presidentialism. According to Richard Heffernan in 2005: ‘To describe the prime minister as a president underplays the core degree of collegiality found within a parliamentary executive. It also underestimates the degree of leverage a prime minister, compared to a president, can have over both legislature and executive.
It’s best to describe modern-day prime ministers as parliamentary presidents. The formal institutional powers of the prime minister have changed very little in recent times — their prerogative powers and those derived from being the leader of the majority party in parliament have remained constant. What is variable, and arguably this has been true for all modern prime ministers, is the context and particular situations of their premierships.
What are the factors surrounding how policy is made ?
How policy is made:
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
Use case studies that feature an example of policy-making that exemplifies these ditterent origins.
Mnemonics for remembering key headings or factors. For the factors affecting policy-making, use PPPES — personal, political, popular, external and social.
Case Study: Extending Free Childcare (2017)
In their 2017 manifesto, the Conservatives pledged to expand free childcare for working parents of 3- and 4-year-olds from 15 to 30 hours per week. The policy aimed to:
• Increase workforce participation by reducing childcare costs for parents.
• Boost the economy by enabling more parents to work and pay taxes.
• Support early childhood development through socialisation and basic skills education.
• Limit eligibility to families earning under £100,000.
The scheme launched in September 2017, fulfilling a key election promise.
Outcomes
1. What Happened?
• The policy was implemented on time but faced funding challenges, with some nurseries struggling to meet demand.
2. Political Takeaway
• Demonstrates how manifesto pledges shape policy and must be practically deliverable.
3. Significance
• Highlights the role of government intervention in economic and social policy.
• Shows the importance of budget planning when rolling out public services.
Case Study: Thatcher’s Privatisation and Council House Sales
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became prime minister with a clear set of convictions. She believed in the benefits of a property-owning democracy and aimed to shrink the state. Her Right to Buy policy, introduced in 1980, allowed council house tenants to purchase their homes at a discounted price, reducing the stock of social housing. In 1981, there were 5.4 million council households in England and Wales, but by 1991, this had decreased to 4.5 million.
Thatcher also pushed for the privatisation of nationalised industries, including British Telecom, gas, electricity, and coal, with the public encouraged to buy shares at discounted rates. These policies were continued by successive governments. For example, Tony Blair privatised air traffic control, and John Major sold off the railways and electricity generation.
What Happened:
-The Right to Buy policy led to a significant reduction in the number of social housing units, with many council houses sold to tenants. The privatisation of national industries was successful in generating revenue for the government but also led to debates over public ownership and control.
Political Takeaway:
- This case study demonstrates how personal convictions of the prime minister played a crucial role in shaping policy-making. Thatcher’s strong belief in a free-market economy and individual ownership influenced both her Right to Buy and privatisation policies. These actions exemplify a prime minister making decisions based on deeply held personal beliefs, rather than as a response to public pressure or crisis. The policy-making process in this case was driven by Thatcher’s ideological vision, which became a central part of her legacy and was continued by her successors.
Significance:
- The policies reshaped the British economy, the housing sector, and the concept of state-owned industries. While successful in reducing government expenditure and promoting individual ownership, they also led to significant social and economic challenges. The continuing debates around social housing and privatisation highlight the long-term effects of decisions driven by personal political convictions.
Case Study: Brexit (Outcome of a Referendum)
In 2015, as part of his manifesto pledge, Prime Minister David Cameron promised to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership in the EU. The 2016 referendum resulted in a 52%-48% victory for those wanting to leave the EU. Cameron, who campaigned for Remain, resigned after the outcome, and Theresa May inherited the task of implementing the decision, despite her own personal opposition to leaving the EU. May, although a Remain supporter, pledged to honour the referendum result.
What Happened:
• Despite efforts to negotiate and implement Brexit, May struggled to find a solution that could pass through Parliament. Her failure to deliver a definitive plan led to her resignation in June 2019, and she was succeeded by Boris Johnson, who adopted a more assertive stance on Brexit.
Political Takeaway:
• The case of Brexit illustrates how referendums can shape policy, often resulting in policies that conflict with the personal convictions of leaders. It shows the challenge of honouring the democratic will of the people while navigating internal party divisions and political opposition.
Significance:
• The Brexit referendum outcome emphasises the importance of public votes in shaping policy, even if it contradicts the personal views of the prime minister. It also highlights the challenges faced by leaders who must implement policies not aligned with their convictions, and the potential for such policies to destabilise governments.
Case Study: The 2011 AV Referendum (Deals with Minority/Coalition Parties)
Following the 2010 election, which resulted in a hung parliament, a Coalition Agreement was formed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. This coalition aimed to provide political stability after the 2008–09 global economic crisis, balancing the manifesto pledges of both parties. One significant part of the agreement was a promise to hold a referendum on changing the voting system for Westminster elections. The Liberal Democrats had long advocated for electoral reform, pushing for a system more proportional than first-past-the-post (FPTP), which they argued disadvantaged smaller parties, including themselves. The proposed alternative was the Alternative Vote (AV) system, which wasn’t proportional but represented a shift from FPTP.
The referendum was held in 2011, and despite limited public enthusiasm, the proposal to adopt AV was decisively defeated with 67.9% voting against and 32.1% in favour. The turnout was low at 41%, compared to 65% in the 2010 general election. As a result, electoral reform was not adopted, and FPTP remained in place.
What Happened:
• The AV referendum failed, as the proposal was rejected by a large majority of voters. The Liberal Democrats had hoped for a move towards a more proportional electoral system, but this didn’t resonate with the public, leading to a significant setback for their electoral reform agenda.
Political Takeaway:
• This case illustrates the impact of coalition deals on policy-making, where compromise between different parties may lead to policies that fail to gain public support. It also shows how coalition agreements can result in limited enthusiasm for some policies, particularly when they lack strong public backing.
Significance:
• The outcome of the AV referendum emphasises the challenges of implementing electoral reform in the face of entrenched political traditions, and how coalition politics can lead to policies that lack the broad support needed for successful implementation. It highlights the difficulties minority parties face in pushing through their preferred policies when not supported by a majority.
Case Study: Responses to National Crises and Emergency Situations: The Coronavirus Pandemic
In early 2020, it became apparent that the world was facing an unprecedented coronavirus pandemic, which required immediate and substantial responses from governments globally. The UK, under Prime Minister Boris Johnson, was no exception. Crises such as the 2008 global financial crisis, the 7/7 bombings in London, and terrorist attacks during Theresa May’s premiership had also tested prime ministers, but the scale and complexity of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a new challenge.
Initially, the UK government response was relatively mild. The government advised against non-essential overseas travel and emphasized personal hygiene measures such as hand-washing. Despite rising concerns, schools, shops, and leisure facilities remained open. However, as the severity of the pandemic became more apparent, government policy shifted dramatically. Restrictions became far more draconian, with large sections of the economy shut down, including pubs, restaurants, and gyms. The government also introduced social distancing and enacted emergency legislation, such as the Coronavirus Act 2020, which empowered authorities to impose penalties on individuals who violated the new restrictions.
The government undertook massive actions, including the construction of temporary field hospitals such as the Nightingale Hospital in London, to support the healthcare system. In response to economic difficulties, Chancellor Rishi Sunak introduced support packages, such as the furlough scheme, where the government covered up to 80% of wages for employees unable to work during the crisis.
What Happened:
• The UK government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis became increasingly restrictive and comprehensive, including emergency measures to curb the spread of the virus and mitigate economic damage. The Nightingale Hospitals and furlough schemes represented major interventions to support the healthcare system and workers, respectively. However, confusion and uncertainty were present throughout the crisis, as government guidance evolved rapidly in response to changing circumstances.
Political Takeaway:
• The pandemic response underscores how national crises force governments to make swift and often unprecedented decisions. In times of crisis, prime ministers must balance public health priorities with the economic stability of the nation, while maintaining public confidence through clear and decisive leadership.
Significance:
• The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the role of emergency legislation and government intervention in times of crisis, demonstrating how the state can mobilize significant resources and pass emergency laws to protect public welfare. The pandemic also showcased the challenges of policy-making under pressure and the need for flexibility as circumstances evolve. It demonstrated how quick, large-scale policy changes could be implemented under national emergency conditions, while also revealing the complexities of managing public health and economic stability simultaneously.
Case Study: Mounting Pressure from the Public and Media: Climate Change Policy
In recent years, climate change has become one of the most significant issues driving public and political discourse. Environmental pressure groups like Extinction Rebellion have used direct action to draw attention to the climate crisis, staging protests and demonstrations to push for stronger action from the government. Meanwhile, Greta Thunberg, the teenage Swedish environmentalist, has led global climate strikes, inspiring a youth movement for climate action. In the UK, these movements have been echoed by schoolchildren, many of whom received tacit support from parents and teachers.
The growing pressure from the public and media, as well as the high-profile campaigns, have had a direct impact on government policy, especially in terms of carbon emissions and climate change legislation. In 2019, the UK government pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero by 2050, a more ambitious target than the 80% reduction that was part of the Climate Change Act 2008. Prime Minister Theresa May described the move as a “moral duty” to ensure that future generations inherit a better world. This shift in policy reflects a clear influence of public opinion and the growing sense of urgency surrounding the climate crisis.
Furthermore, the government’s independent adviser on climate change, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), played a role in advising this policy change, suggesting that both public pressure and expert recommendations were significant factors in the government’s decision.
What Happened:
• The UK government responded to public pressure and the influence of environmental groups by strengthening its climate change commitments, pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to nearly zero by 2050. This was a significant step up from previous targets and highlights the impact of public and media pressure in influencing governmental policy.
Political Takeaway:
• The climate change movement illustrates how public opinion and media campaigns can create a strong mandate for change, compelling governments to adjust policies to reflect popular concerns. This case underscores the growing importance of environmental activism in shaping national policy.
Significance:
• This shift in climate policy demonstrates how mounting pressure from public movements can bring about significant policy changes, particularly when the issue resonates with broad sections of society. It also highlights the role of politicians and government advisers in responding to this pressure, ensuring that policy evolves to reflect the concerns of a more environmentally-conscious public.
What are some instances where the Prime minister their cabinet can determine policy ?
Despite prime ministers only having partial control over events and decisions about policies, there are times when the executive, power of the prime minister and cabinet, can dictate events and determine policy-making.
Although Prime ministers and cabinets having partial control over events and policy decisions. However, there are instances where they can dictate outcomes:
• Poll tax (1990): Introduced by Margaret Thatcher, this controversial policy faced widespread opposition and led to riots, ultimately contributing to her resignation.
• Invasion of Iraq (2003): Tony Blair led the UK into the Iraq War, despite significant public opposition, shaping foreign policy for years.
• Early election (2017): Theresa May called a snap election, believing it would strengthen her mandate for Brexit negotiations. However, the result weakened her position, leading to political instability.
These examples show how prime ministers can drive significant policy decisions, even when faced with resistance or unforeseen consequences.
The introduction of the poll tax in 1990:
The Introduction of the Poll Tax in 1990: A Prime Ministerial Policy Dictated by Thatcher
- Background and Context of the Poll Tax
• Domestic Rates System: The old system of domestic rates was a property-based tax that funded local councils. However, it was seen as unfair as it didn’t account for income or the ability to pay, and many renters or lodgers didn’t pay it. Additionally, residents could vote for councils that promised high levels of spending without being directly affected by rate increases.
• Conservative Desire for Reform: The Conservative Party had long sought to reform this system. They included a plan to replace domestic rates with a flat-rate tax in their 1987 manifesto, which would apply to nearly all adults.
• The Poll Tax: The new system, officially named the “community charge” but widely known as the poll tax, was introduced to spread the burden of local services across the population. Thatcher’s personal commitment to the poll tax is clear, as evidenced by her handwritten annotations on policy documents.
• Implementation Timeline: The bill for the community charge passed after Thatcher’s 1987 election victory. It was first implemented in Scotland in 1989, with plans to expand it to the rest of Great Britain in 1990. - Unpopularity and Backlash
• Initial Reaction in Scotland: The poll tax proved deeply unpopular when it was introduced in Scotland. Despite this, Thatcher remained steadfast in her commitment to the tax, demonstrating her personal influence over policy.
• Poll Tax Riots: Major riots erupted in London and other cities in March 1990. Anti-poll tax protests turned violent, resulting in over 100 injuries and 400 arrests. There was also a widespread civil disobedience campaign of non-payment.
• Problems with Collection: The poll tax was difficult to collect. Due to the mobility of individuals, evasion rates were high, and the administration of the tax became expensive.
• Media Parody: The tax was mocked in the media, particularly with the “duke and dustman” analogy, which highlighted the unfairness of the tax, where both the wealthy and the poor would pay the same amount. - Political Fallout
• Internal Party Opposition: Opposition within the Conservative Party grew, with key figures like Michael Heseltine challenging Thatcher’s leadership. Thatcher’s failure to secure enough votes in the first leadership ballot led her to step down, avoiding a potential second ballot defeat.
• Economic and Poll Decline: Thatcher’s resignation came amidst a weakening economy and declining Conservative opinion poll numbers, further hastening her fall from power.
• The End of the Poll Tax: John Major, who succeeded Thatcher as prime minister, replaced the poll tax with the council tax, a property-based tax that was not as controversial. - The Prime Minister’s Ability to Dictate Policy
• Thatcher’s Personal Responsibility: The poll tax became a policy directly associated with Thatcher. It demonstrated her ability to dictate policy, but when the policy faced backlash, there was no one else to blame. This lack of political cover further eroded her position.
• Thatcher’s Disconnect: The poll tax controversy highlighted growing concerns within her own party about her leadership style. Her refusal to listen to political allies, such as when backbencher Ralph Howell raised concerns about the tax, contributed to her downfall.
• The “Dictator” Perception: The perception of Thatcher as a dictator was reflected in an exchange involving Howell, whose constituents criticized her imposition of the poll tax. Her advisers considered a meeting with Howell a “waste of time,” revealing how disconnected she had become from even her loyal supporters. - The Legacy of the Poll Tax
• Political Damage: The poll tax debacle is widely regarded as Thatcher’s biggest political mistake, one that significantly contributed to the end of her premiership.
• Policy Dictation and Party Concerns: The policy underscores the dangers of a prime minister dictating policy without proper consultation or consideration of alternative viewpoints. For many in the Conservative Party, the poll tax was the final straw, exacerbating concerns about Thatcher’s leadership and the risk of electoral defeat in 1992.
⸻
Significance in Relation to Policy-Making:
• Personal Conviction Over Collective Decision-Making: Thatcher’s push for the poll tax shows how a prime minister, driven by personal convictions, can dictate policy despite the lack of widespread support or careful consideration. The poll tax was not a response to a national crisis or a democratic mandate but rather a policy driven by Thatcher’s desire for reform and political ideology.
• The Dangers of Unilateral Decision-Making: The poll tax highlights the risks of a prime minister pushing through controversial policies without consulting party members or fully assessing public reaction. Thatcher’s failure to listen to opposition within her party and the public contributed to the policy’s unpopularity and her eventual resignation.
• Prime Ministerial Control and Its Limits: While prime ministers can exert considerable influence over policy, the case of the poll tax shows the potential dangers of unchecked control. The lack of political cover for the policy and Thatcher’s eventual downfall demonstrate that even powerful prime ministers cannot ignore the broader political and social forces that shape policy-making.
This episode reflects how a prime minister can dictate policy but also how that control is limited when policies are poorly received or when the prime minister alienates key allies. It also highlights the importance of listening to political advisers and understanding public sentiment in decision-making.
The Decision to Invade Iraq: A Case of Policy Dictated by the Prime Minister
The Introduction of the Poll Tax in 1990: A Prime Ministerial Policy Dictated by Thatcher
- Background and Context of the Poll Tax
• Domestic Rates System: The old system of domestic rates was a property-based tax that funded local councils. However, it was seen as unfair as it didn’t account for income or the ability to pay, and many renters or lodgers didn’t pay it. Additionally, residents could vote for councils that promised high levels of spending without being directly affected by rate increases.
• Conservative Desire for Reform: The Conservative Party had long sought to reform this system. They included a plan to replace domestic rates with a flat-rate tax in their 1987 manifesto, which would apply to nearly all adults.
• The Poll Tax: The new system, officially named the “community charge” but widely known as the poll tax, was introduced to spread the burden of local services across the population. Thatcher’s personal commitment to the poll tax is clear, as evidenced by her handwritten annotations on policy documents.
• Implementation Timeline: The bill for the community charge passed after Thatcher’s 1987 election victory. It was first implemented in Scotland in 1989, with plans to expand it to the rest of Great Britain in 1990. - Unpopularity and Backlash
• Initial Reaction in Scotland: The poll tax proved deeply unpopular when it was introduced in Scotland. Despite this, Thatcher remained steadfast in her commitment to the tax, demonstrating her personal influence over policy.
• Poll Tax Riots: Major riots erupted in London and other cities in March 1990. Anti-poll tax protests turned violent, resulting in over 100 injuries and 400 arrests. There was also a widespread civil disobedience campaign of non-payment.
• Problems with Collection: The poll tax was difficult to collect. Due to the mobility of individuals, evasion rates were high, and the administration of the tax became expensive.
• Media Parody: The tax was mocked in the media, particularly with the “duke and dustman” analogy, which highlighted the unfairness of the tax, where both the wealthy and the poor would pay the same amount. - Political Fallout
• Internal Party Opposition: Opposition within the Conservative Party grew, with key figures like Michael Heseltine challenging Thatcher’s leadership. Thatcher’s failure to secure enough votes in the first leadership ballot led her to step down, avoiding a potential second ballot defeat.
• Economic and Poll Decline: Thatcher’s resignation came amidst a weakening economy and declining Conservative opinion poll numbers, further hastening her fall from power.
• The End of the Poll Tax: John Major, who succeeded Thatcher as prime minister, replaced the poll tax with the council tax, a property-based tax that was not as controversial. - The Prime Minister’s Ability to Dictate Policy
• Thatcher’s Personal Responsibility: The poll tax became a policy directly associated with Thatcher. It demonstrated her ability to dictate policy, but when the policy faced backlash, there was no one else to blame. This lack of political cover further eroded her position.
• Thatcher’s Disconnect: The poll tax controversy highlighted growing concerns within her own party about her leadership style. Her refusal to listen to political allies, such as when backbencher Ralph Howell raised concerns about the tax, contributed to her downfall.
• The “Dictator” Perception: The perception of Thatcher as a dictator was reflected in an exchange involving Howell, whose constituents criticized her imposition of the poll tax. Her advisers considered a meeting with Howell a “waste of time,” revealing how disconnected she had become from even her loyal supporters. - The Legacy of the Poll Tax
• Political Damage: The poll tax debacle is widely regarded as Thatcher’s biggest political mistake, one that significantly contributed to the end of her premiership.
• Policy Dictation and Party Concerns: The policy underscores the dangers of a prime minister dictating policy without proper consultation or consideration of alternative viewpoints. For many in the Conservative Party, the poll tax was the final straw, exacerbating concerns about Thatcher’s leadership and the risk of electoral defeat in 1992.
⸻
Significance in Relation to Policy-Making:
• Personal Conviction Over Collective Decision-Making: Thatcher’s push for the poll tax shows how a prime minister, driven by personal convictions, can dictate policy despite the lack of widespread support or careful consideration. The poll tax was not a response to a national crisis or a democratic mandate but rather a policy driven by Thatcher’s desire for reform and political ideology.
• The Dangers of Unilateral Decision-Making: The poll tax highlights the risks of a prime minister pushing through controversial policies without consulting party members or fully assessing public reaction. Thatcher’s failure to listen to opposition within her party and the public contributed to the policy’s unpopularity and her eventual resignation.
• Prime Ministerial Control and Its Limits: While prime ministers can exert considerable influence over policy, the case of the poll tax shows the potential dangers of unchecked control. The lack of political cover for the policy and Thatcher’s eventual downfall demonstrate that even powerful prime ministers cannot ignore the broader political and social forces that shape policy-making.
This episode reflects how a prime minister can dictate policy but also how that control is limited when policies are poorly received or when the prime minister alienates key allies. It also highlights the importance of listening to political advisers and understanding public sentiment in decision-making.
Comparison of Three Prime Ministerial Policy Decisions: The Poll Tax, Iraq War, and 2017 Election
Similarities:
1. Direct personal involvement: Each case was driven by decisions directly made by the prime minister and were closely associated with them.
2. Seemed rational at the outset: Each policy decision appeared to be rational and logical when first considered.
3. Lack of consultation: In all three cases, the prime minister failed to consult widely and ignored cautionary voices within their party, leading to poor outcomes.
4. Failure and resignation: Each decision ultimately ended in failure and contributed to the resignation of the prime minister.
5. Political gamble: None of the decisions were entirely necessary in response to an immediate crisis, but all were undertaken as political gambles. Although the Conservatives had promised reforming domestic rates, the poll tax wasn’t an urgent necessity. The 2017 election decision was politically motivated, and the Iraq War was a result of pressure from the US, not a direct need.
Differences:
1. Nature of the policy:
• Poll Tax: The poll tax was largely a “conviction” policy. Thatcher deeply believed in its necessity to reform domestic rates and provide fairness, although it ultimately became her biggest political misjudgment.
• 2017 Election: The decision to call an early election was driven by political and electoral factors. Theresa May believed she could secure a larger mandate following her Brexit negotiations, but it was influenced by her political calculations rather than a deep ideological commitment.
• Iraq War: The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was heavily influenced by external pressure, especially from the United States. Tony Blair’s alignment with President George W. Bush’s foreign policy interests led to the decision to invade, despite widespread public opposition.
2. Timing of the decision:
• Poll Tax: Introduced towards the end of Thatcher’s premiership, following her third election victory in 1987. It was a significant part of her domestic agenda but eventually led to her downfall.
• 2017 Election: This decision was early in Theresa May’s tenure. May’s decision to call the snap election in April 2017 was seen as a gamble to strengthen her position before Brexit negotiations, but it ultimately weakened her authority.
• Iraq War: Occurred midway through Tony Blair’s second term as prime minister. The war was a significant foreign policy decision and was central to Blair’s political legacy.
3. Scale of failure:
• Poll Tax: The poll tax was met with fierce opposition, leading to violent protests and riots, particularly in London. The tax was difficult to collect, with widespread evasion. Thatcher faced immense backlash, even within her own party, which contributed to her resignation in 1990.
• Iraq War: The Iraq War, despite initial military success, became one of the most controversial decisions of Blair’s premiership. The war led to significant British casualties and widespread opposition. It tarnished Blair’s legacy and severely affected his popularity, although he was re-elected in 2005, his majority was significantly reduced.
• 2017 Election: The election backfired for Theresa May, as her party lost the Conservative majority in the House of Commons. This exposed her weakness as a leader and severely undermined her political authority, although it didn’t result in immediate public unrest like the poll tax or Iraq War.
4. Political aftermath:
• Poll Tax: The policy was heavily associated with Thatcher and led to her resignation. It highlighted her failure to listen to her political allies and was seen as a ‘final straw’ for many within the Conservative Party.
• Iraq War: Blair’s decision to invade Iraq did not end his premiership immediately, as he won the 2005 election, but his majority was reduced from 167 to 66 seats, reflecting diminished political capital. The Iraq War became a defining aspect of Blair’s leadership.
• 2017 Election: May faced immediate internal party opposition following the election result, and her authority was severely weakened. The result forced her into a fragile coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and marked the beginning of the end of her leadership.
Conclusion: The analysis of these three cases demonstrates that when prime ministers attempt to dictate policy and events, they must be cautious. In each case, the leaders failed to consult widely within their own party, misjudged the risks, and made decisions that ultimately led to significant failure. These political gambles, while initially attractive, revealed the dangers of acting without proper consultation or consideration of long-term consequences. Prime ministers need to have strong political instincts, manage risks carefully, and be aware that the allure of a policy that seems too good to be true often masks significant underlying challenges.
How policy is made, key players:
Here is a revised version with the requested format, including examples in practice and significance for each key person:
⸻
Prime Minister’s Policy Agenda
Examples in Practice:
• Boris Johnson entered No. 10 with the clear agenda of “Getting Brexit Done.”
• David Cameron’s “Big Society” was a key part of his vision when he became Prime Minister.
Significance:
• The policy agenda is crucial for a prime minister to establish their leadership and make a tangible impact.
• A clear agenda allows prime ministers to focus on priorities, ensuring they are remembered for certain policies or reforms.
• Having a working majority in the Commons means that a prime minister can generally push through their policies more easily, though smaller or non-existent majorities make this challenging. Coalition governments need negotiation and compromise with junior coalition parties.
⸻
The Cabinet’s Role in Policy Formation
Examples in Practice:
• Cabinet discussions and debates lead to the formal agreement of policy initiatives.
• Disagreements on issues, such as budget allocations or policy details, are often resolved in cabinet meetings.
Significance:
• The cabinet provides an essential platform for prime ministers to gather support for their policies.
• Its decisions help formalize and guide the implementation of policies, especially those that require cross-government coordination.
• Cabinet debates ensure that different perspectives are considered before policies are enacted, but prime ministers with strong mandates may still override these debates to push their own agenda.
⸻
Senior Civil Servants’ Role
Examples in Practice:
• Senior civil servants helped implement key policies such as the 2012 London Olympics and the National Citizen Service.
• Simon Case, the Head of the Civil Service in 2022, advised ministers and played a significant role in government operations.
• Civil servants were deeply involved in the detailed negotiations surrounding Brexit from 2017 onwards.
Significance:
• Civil servants provide expert advice on policy implementation, ensuring that proposals are feasible and legally sound.
• Their long experience and neutrality give them significant authority in government, especially when the political leadership is divided or uncertain.
• The advice from senior civil servants is crucial in managing the technical and practical aspects of policy, including costs, logistics, and legality.
• Civil servants can exert significant influence in shaping policy, particularly in complex situations like Brexit, where long-term planning and administration are key.
⸻
Special Advisers (SpAds)
Examples in Practice:
• Dominic Cummings was a key special adviser to Boris Johnson and played a major role in the hard-line approach to Brexit.
• Alastair Campbell was influential in Tony Blair’s government, particularly in managing the media and shaping public messaging.
• Special advisers, like Cummings, often directly shaped the prime minister’s policies and were known to have significant influence over their decisions.
Significance:
• Special advisers provide a direct line of communication between the prime minister and their political allies, offering advice that aligns with the party’s agenda.
• Unlike civil servants, SpAds are often more political and can push through policies that reflect the prime minister’s ideological stance.
• They have become increasingly influential in recent years, with advisers like Cummings playing central roles in pushing policy directions, such as the hard-line Brexit approach.
• However, their political affiliations and limited tenure can make them controversial figures, as seen with Cummings’ fallout over breaking Covid-19 travel restrictions, which caused significant political damage to Boris Johnson’s government.
How do manifesto pledges influence policy making in different government setups?
Manifesto Pledges
Examples in Practice:
• Manifesto pledges are typically straightforward for the ruling party since they are pre-agreed. For example, “Get Brexit Done” helped the Conservatives win the 2019 election.
• Minority or coalition governments face more complexity. After the inconclusive 2017 election, Theresa May formed a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which was pro-Brexit and socially conservative. However, the DUP was not in a formal coalition with the Conservatives. Instead, they entered into a confidence and supply deal, agreeing to support the government in crucial votes of confidence and supply, which helped prevent a no-confidence vote and provided support for the government’s budget.
Significance:
• Manifesto pledges provide a clear policy direction and mandate, helping the ruling party secure electoral support.
• For minority/coalition governments, the need for deals can lead to policy compromises, potentially weakening the prime minister’s authority and direction.
• A confidence and supply deal allows the prime minister to maintain government stability without forming a full coalition, but it may limit policy flexibility.
How does collaboration affect policy making in government?
Collaboration in Policy-Making
Examples in Practice:
• Policy decisions often require cooperation between ministers and departments, such as the Brexit negotiations.
• The prime minister has the final say, but political realities like backbench rebellions and ministerial resignations constrain decision-making.
• Unforeseen events, like the 7/7 London bombings or the Covid-19 pandemic, lead to policy shifts in response to emergencies.
Significance:
• Collaboration ensures a broad range of perspectives and reduces internal party conflict, making policies more likely to succeed.
• Prime ministers who avoid collaboration, like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, risk isolation and vulnerability, weakening their position.
• Unforeseen events force urgent policy changes, testing the prime minister’s leadership and adaptability in crisis situations.
What do the Prime minister’s main powers and resources include:
- prerogative powers (the royal prerogative)
- shaping and deciding policy, both nationally and for England
- de facto commander-in-chief of the armed forces
- patronage - choosing their cabinet and promoting, demoting and reshuffling members as appropriate
- arranging the structure of cabinet committees and often chairing many committees
- high media profile — plenty of opportunities to explain and defend government actions to the public and to parliament
- as leader of the largest party in the Commons, they are normally able to command a working majority to get their legislative plans through, which gives them a lot of control over parliamentary business
- able to make use of the civil service (especially the Cabinet Office) and special advisers, SpAds, for policy input and advice
- Usually able to claim authority or mandate from the people by winning the general election; prime ministers who assume office mid-term, such as Gordon Brown in 2007, are often said to be weakened by the lack of a direct mandate.
when discussing the power of the prime minister to reshuffle their cabinet, use the most recent example available: Boris Johnson carried out his third reshuffle in early 2022 when, among other changes, Jacob Rees-Mogg took on a new role as minister for Brexit opportunities.
The power to determine policy making
Introduction of the poll tax, 1990:
Background/motives:
+ A longstanding Conservative policy to reform local government taxation
and end domestic rates, and a 1987 manifesto pledge.
+ Many Conservatives wanted to rein in high-spending Labour councils,
many of whose voters did not pay rates.
+ A desire to spread the cost of local government services, such as education and social care, more fairly. Domestic rates taxed homes regardless of the number of residents (and their use of local services) or their income. They also were not directly payable by tenants.
+ The poll tax (the official name was the community charge) was a flat rate
tax payable by nearly all adults.
+ The policy was strongly supported by Margaret Thatcher herself. She
personally annotated many of the briefings and memorandums about the proposals.
+ First trialled in Scotland, where it had proved unpopular and difficult to
implement.
+ Although undefeated after three general elections and with a decent Commons majority, Thatcher was facing increasing criticism for her dictatorial style and unwillingness to listen to critics within her own party and even the cabinet.
Outcome
+ Aroused strong hostility on the left; many refused to pay the new tax.
+ Mass protests, including a number of violent tax riots involving tens of
thousands of protestors.
+ Opposition was especially strong in staunchly Labour areas such as South Yorkshire, already alienated by the 1984-5 miners’ strike and pit closures.
+ Many of Thatcher’s MPs disliked the policy and criticised the prime minister. The growing opposition from Tory MPs and supporters played a major part in a formal leadership challenge from ex-minister Michael Heseltine in November 1990. Thatcher failed to secure enough votes in the first ballot and subsequently resigned as prime minister and Tory leader soon afterwards.
+ The policy was scrapped soon after Thatcher’s resignation and replaced by
the council tax in 1993.
Measures dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic, 2020–1
Background/motives ✚ The onset of the global pandemic in early 2020 brought huge and unprecedented challenges for both the nation and Johnson’s government in terms of the economy and the impact on the NHS and individual lives.
✚ Government policy was very much determined by pragmatism and events, i.e. what worked/didn’t work, as it was nearly impossible to plan and enact policy in the rapidly changing situation.
✚ There was a lot of criticism early on concerning issues such as the supply
of personal protective equipment (PPE) to frontline health workers, the ‘track and trace’ system and the awarding of some contracts to friends and political allies of the prime minister and ministers: ‘Covid cronyism’.
✚ The government was forced to borrow billions of pounds to fund the costs of the furlough scheme for workers laid off temporarily, emergency loans to the worst-affected businesses and temporary increases in benefits such as Universal Credit. There was also the added strain and costs on the NHS due to hospitalisations and the vaccine roll-out programme.
✚ The prime minister could only dictate policy, e.g. lockdowns, in England; the devolved assemblies followed their own policies, often more cautious. This led to variations in rules across the UK. For example, face masks in public spaces remained obligatory longer in Wales compared to England.
✚ Policy making was heavily influenced by medical experts, e.g. members of the SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) committee; at public briefings, many of the questions were handled by scientists such as Professor Chris Whitty rather than by politicians.
✚ Opposition parties had to be careful in their approach, as they could not oppose all government policy on principle. Many measures, such as the national lockdown, were universally agreed to be necessary based on scientific data and policies in other nations. Labour, therefore, largely went along with the key measures, and instead focused on criticising policy implementation and allegations of corruption and mixed messaging by government ministers.
Outcome
✚ Government handling of the crisis was extremely mixed. Some early stages, such as the track and trace system operated by private companies including Serco, were considered shambolic, suggesting a lack of preparation. Later stages, such as the rapid vaccine roll-out, proved much more successful, with the result that most legal restrictions such as banning large-scale gatherings and compulsory face-mask wearing could be lifted by summer 2021. Restrictions were partially reintroduced in late 2021 due to the spread of the Omicron variant, but relaxed again in early 2022, demonstrating how policy can quickly alter in times of crisis.
✚ Some of the most damning criticisms on the prime minister’s handling of the crisis came from disgraced special adviser Dominic Cummings. In one statement before a parliamentary inquiry in May 2021, he commented: ‘I would say, if you took anybody at random from the top 1% of competent people in country and presented them with the situation, they would have behaved differently to how the prime minister behaved.’ Cummings had himself been earlier accused of breaking lockdown rules.
✚ The crisis proved to have mixed political fortunes for the Tory Party. On one hand, in the midst of the pandemic they won the Hartlepool byelection, winning the seat off Labour, and fared well in the May 2021 local elections. On the other hand, in June 2021 they went on to lose Chesham and Amersham, a safe Buckinghamshire seat, to the Liberal Democrats.
✚ Allegations that the PM allowed and attended some parties at No 10, dubbed ‘Partygate’ by the media, led to a drop in Conservative support at the polls by the start of 2022. There were demands for his resignation from some Conservative backbenchers.
✚ The huge financial costs will affect fiscal policy for years to come. ✚ This was very much a global crisis, and the mixed pattern of successes/ failures could be seen in most other developed countries.
✚ The pandemic was a classic example of policy being determined primarily by events and non-political experts, rather than by the prime minister and ministers.
Similarities and Differences Between Two Major Political Crises
Similarities:
• Damaging to the Prime Minister – Both significantly harmed the PM’s reputation and were seen as major blots on their leadership.
• Strong Personal Commitment – In both cases, the PM played a central role in defending and explaining the policy, showing personal investment.
• Dismissal of Criticism – Both crises were marked by the PM not taking criticism seriously or ignoring advice that conflicted with their stance.
• Party Divisions – Both led to internal criticism within their own party.
• Parliamentary Approval – Both policies were formally voted on and approved by parliament.
Differences:
• Policy vs Crisis Management – One was a clear manifesto pledge, while the other required rapid response to an unexpected global event.
• Public and Party Reaction – Johnson’s handling of the pandemic faced less criticism from backbenchers; his harshest critic was his former SpAd.
• Delegation vs Direct Leadership – Johnson was accused of not taking the lead on pandemic policy and delegating too much, whereas the other issue saw a more hands-on approach.
• Reputation Recovery – Despite early failures, Johnson’s government regained some credit for the swift vaccine rollout.
• Impact Scale – The pandemic was arguably more damaging due to the loss of life and financial costs involved.
Brief about the different types of the power available to the Prime minister:
And
What are the institutional powers belonging to the Prime minister ?
Distinction between the institutional powers available to all prime ministers, and their personal and political powers that vary according to circumstances and context.
Among the institutional powers available to all occupants of No. 10 are:
• appointing and dismissing ministers and undertaking cabinet reshuffles
• chairing weekly meetings of the cabinet and setting the agenda
• arranging and sometimes chairing cabinet committees dicine dey priorities
• as party leader, usually being able to command a Commons majority to get legislation through
• issuing honours such as life peerages
What are the personal powers belonging to Prime Ministers?
The personal and political powers of the prime minister are far more variable and include:
1. the momentum and political capital that comes from leading their party to victory in the previous election, which enables them to persuade and lead more effectively
2. effective management of colleagues both in cabinet and on the backbenches
3. personal qualities as an effective communicator and national leader
4. the ability (or otherwise) to unite and rally their own party
5. skill in managing the economy and handling unexpected challenges faced in office
What conditions vary the powers belonging to the prime minister ?
Both institutional and personal powers are dependent on a range of circumstances, some of which are beyond the prime minister’s immediate control. These can include:
1. opinion poll ratings, and the results of more recent elections such as byelections and local council elections
2. personalities in their cabinet and party at the time
3. potential leadership challenges
4. the strength and threat posed by the main opposition party
Explain and analyse the Patronage Powers of the Prime Minister.
Patronage is a key power of the prime minister, allowing them to shape the government by appointing and dismissing ministers. A strong cabinet ensures loyalty, reinforces party unity, and reflects the prime minister’s policy agenda. However, this power is not absolute—factors such as political balance, party divisions, and potential backlash from dismissed ministers can constrain decision-making.
Prime Ministerial Patronage
• Prime ministers can appoint and dismiss ministers without requiring approval, enabling them to create a team that aligns with their leadership style and priorities.
• Newly appointed prime ministers often conduct major reshuffles to establish control:
• Theresa May (2016) removed 15 ministers, including Chancellor George Osborne and Justice Secretary Michael Gove, consolidating her authority.
• Boris Johnson (2019) dismissed 11 senior ministers, with six others refusing to serve. His new cabinet featured allies such as Dominic Raab (Foreign Office), Priti Patel (Home Office), and Sajid Javid (Chancellor).
• Johnson’s drastic reshuffle was dubbed a “massacre” by Conservative MP Nigel Evans and compared to Harold Macmillan’s (1962) “Night of the Long Knives,” when he dismissed a third of his cabinet.
Limitations on Patronage
• Cabinet Balance: Prime ministers must consider ideological and demographic diversity to maintain party unity.
• Theresa May included both Leave and Remain supporters to manage Brexit divisions.
• Tony Blair retained Gordon Brown as Chancellor to prevent party infighting and appointed John Prescott to appeal to Labour’s working-class base.
• Risk of Backlash: Sacked ministers can become dangerous opponents.
• Margaret Thatcher’s (1989) demotion of Geoffrey Howe led to his 1990 resignation speech, which undermined her authority and triggered her downfall. His cricket analogy—likening Thatcher to a captain who broke her own batsmen’s bats—was particularly damaging.
• Too many reshuffles can create instability and make a prime minister appear weak or indecisive.
Coalition Constraints
• In coalition governments, prime ministers cannot fully control cabinet appointments.
• David Cameron (2010-2015) had to cede five cabinet positions to Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg under the Coalition Agreement.
Significance and Extent of Patronage Powers
Patronage powers are a critical tool for a prime minister to consolidate their control over the government. By appointing and dismissing ministers, the prime minister can shape the cabinet to support their leadership style, policy agenda, and party unity. This power allows the prime minister to reward loyalists, place key figures in strategic positions, and align the government with their vision. Patronage is essential for maintaining a strong executive team, particularly when dealing with major national issues like Brexit or economic crises. For example, Theresa May’s reshuffle in 2016 allowed her to assert authority over the cabinet, while Boris Johnson’s reshuffle in 2019 helped him secure support for his Brexit strategy.
Additionally, patronage influences the party’s internal dynamics, as the prime minister’s appointments can either unite or divide factions within the party. It is a tool to manage internal politics and strengthen the prime minister’s legitimacy. A well-managed cabinet can enhance a prime minister’s political stability and credibility.
Extent of Power:
While patronage offers significant power, its extent is limited by several factors:
1. Political Balance and Demographics: Prime ministers must consider political divisions and diversity within the cabinet to prevent alienating key factions or undermining party unity. For instance, May had to include both Leave and Remain supporters during Brexit negotiations to prevent rifts. Similarly, Tony Blair balanced his cabinet by including a mix of political backgrounds, such as the working-class John Prescott alongside Gordon Brown to avoid internal conflict.
2. Risk of Backlash: Sacking or demoting ministers can lead to significant political consequences, including public criticism or even leadership challenges. Geoffrey Howe’s resignation in 1990, following his demotion by Margaret Thatcher, is a key example where a disgruntled ex-minister triggered a leadership challenge and contributed to Thatcher’s downfall. A prime minister must carefully assess the risks involved in reshuffling to avoid triggering such fallout.
3. Coalition Governments: In a coalition, patronage powers are shared. David Cameron’s coalition government with the Liberal Democrats (2010–2015) limited his patronage power, as he had to cede five cabinet positions to Nick Clegg under the Coalition Agreement. In such arrangements, the prime minister cannot fully control appointments, limiting their influence over the cabinet’s makeup.
Overall, while patronage is a powerful tool for the prime minister, its extent is shaped by internal party politics, the need for balance within the cabinet, and the constraints of coalition arrangements.
Explain and analyse the
Prime ministers Authority Over the Cabinet:
The prime minister exercises formal control over the cabinet, shaping its structure, discussions, and decision-making. While cabinet is the formal decision-making body of government, its authority is not absolute—power dynamics, internal divisions, and external pressures can challenge prime ministerial control.
Prime Ministerial Control
• The prime minister dictates when and where cabinet meets, usually weekly at No. 10, though occasionally outside London for symbolic reasons (e.g. Sunderland, 31 Jan 2020, marking Brexit).
• They set the agenda and chair proceedings, influencing discussions and ensuring alignment with their policies.
• The Cabinet Manual defines cabinet as the “ultimate arbiter of all government policy”, reinforcing its formal role in decision-making.
• Ministers are bound by collective responsibility, meaning they must publicly support decisions or resign.
Challenges to Cabinet Control
• Internal Disagreements:
• Tony Blair failed to convince Gordon Brown to support UK adoption of the euro.
• Theresa May’s Chequers Brexit deal (2018) quickly collapsed due to cabinet opposition.
• “Full and frank discussions” often signal heated arguments rather than consensus.
• Cabinet Committees & Informal Decision-Making:
• Many decisions are pre-determined in cabinet committees, limiting full cabinet influence.
• Prime ministers often use cabinet as a sounding board rather than a true decision-making forum.
• Leaking & Discontent:
• Ministers frequently leak discussions to the media, often anonymously, undermining unity.
• This has affected all modern PMs, prompting Boris Johnson (2019) to reinforce anti-leak rules in the Ministerial Code.
Collective responsibility Requirement that all members of the cabinet and
government must support the prime minister and government policy in public, enabling a united common front to be presented to the public and the media.
Significance & Power
Prime ministerial authority over the cabinet is a key source of power, but its strength depends on political context and leadership style:
• Enhances control – Setting the agenda and enforcing decisions strengthens the prime minister’s leadership.
• Limits exist – Cabinet disagreements (e.g. Brexit divisions) can weaken authority.
• Leaks and rebellions – Public disputes damage credibility and disrupt policymaking.
• Skilled prime ministers use cabinet effectively – Those who manage personalities and maintain unity (e.g. Blair initially with his ‘big tent’ approach) reinforce their power, while those who alienate key figures (e.g. Thatcher losing Geoffrey Howe) risk their downfall.
Explain and analyse the Prime ministers power to Arrange and Chair Cabinet Committees:
Prime ministers can create, order, and structure cabinet committees to reduce the burden on full cabinet meetings, allowing smaller groups of ministers to make decisions on specific policy areas. Cabinet committees have existed since the early 20th century. As of 2021, there were 11 main committees, including:
• EU Exit Strategy
• EU Exit Operations
• Economic Operations Committee
• National Security Council
• Climate Change
• Covid-19 Strategy
• Crime and Justice Task Force
• Union Policy Implementation
• National Space Council
The government can create other types of ministerial committees, such as the implementation taskforces introduced by David Cameron in 2015, which were discontinued by Boris Johnson in 2019. In response to the coronavirus pandemic, Johnson created four new committees in 2020 to focus on healthcare, the public sector, economic/business, and international response.
The creation and effectiveness of these committees depend largely on the prime minister and individual ministers. For example, Theresa May created several committees to manage Brexit, while Boris Johnson set up the Climate Change Committee after committing to net-zero emissions by 2050.
The significance of cabinet committees varies by prime minister. Tony Blair created many committees, but he preferred ad hoc meetings, which reduced their impact. Oliver Letwin of the coalition government valued committees for ensuring the Coalition Agreement was upheld. George Osborne didn’t prioritize them, and many economic committees rarely met. May initially reduced the number of committees but later chaired most of them herself, signaling a tight grip on government. After the 2017 election, she delegated more to David Lidington, her de facto deputy.
Significance and Extent of Power
Significance:
• Cabinet committees are vital for delegating decision-making and managing the government’s workload.
• They allow the prime minister to focus on key issues while relying on smaller groups for specific policy areas.
• Committees reflect the priorities of the government, such as Brexit and climate change, enhancing the prime minister’s control over these major issues.
Extent of Power:
• Prime ministers have full control over the creation, structuring, and dissolution of cabinet committees, which allows them to manage and direct government decisions.
• Committees are a flexible tool and can be used or ignored depending on the prime minister’s style of government.
• The effectiveness of committees depends on the prime minister’s leadership and the engagement of ministers.
• Limitations arise when delegating too much leads to a lack of accountability or when ministers have conflicting views on committee importance.
Explain and analyse the Prime Ministers power to dictate policy priorities:
Dictating Policy Priorities
Prime ministers play a crucial role in setting policy priorities and directing the government’s agenda. Those with strong mandates or majorities, like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, have been particularly effective in shaping policy. For instance, Thatcher successfully pursued privatization and weakened trade unions, while Blair focused on modernizing the Constitution and steering New Labour away from its socialist roots. Boris Johnson, with his “Get Brexit Done” slogan, set the direction for his 2019 campaign and focused on delivering Brexit.
However, prime ministers are not without constraints when dictating policy. They are often restricted by manifesto commitments and the political realities they face. Economic recessions or other unforeseen events can hinder efforts to increase public spending or reduce taxes. Moreover, many policies, especially in foreign affairs, require cooperation with external parties. Brexit is a prime example, where Johnson’s desired outcome was dependent on agreements with the EU and its member states. Therefore, while prime ministers have the authority to set priorities, the ability to determine their outcomes can be limited.
Significance and Extent of Power
Significance:
• Prime ministers have significant influence over the policy agenda, especially when they have a clear mandate or strong majority.
• They can push through ambitious reforms, such as Thatcher’s privatization or Blair’s constitutional changes.
• The ability to set priorities allows the prime minister to guide the government and demonstrate leadership.
Extent of Power:
• While prime ministers can define policy direction, their decisions are often shaped by external factors, including economic conditions and international relations.
• They face constraints from manifesto pledges, the opposition, and the need for external cooperation (e.g., Brexit negotiations with the EU).
• Their power is not absolute, and even with a strong majority, unforeseen circumstances or resistance from other political actors can limit their ability to fully achieve their goals.
Explain and analyse the Cabinet office:
The Cabinet Office
The Cabinet Office, created in 1916, serves as the central hub for the UK government’s administrative functions, supporting the prime minister and ensuring the effective running of government. It functions like a corporate headquarters, offering secretarial support and coordinating interdepartmental work. With around 2,050 civil servants, the Cabinet Office handles various essential tasks, such as circulating key documents, taking minutes at meetings, and providing advice on policy implementation. Notably, the head of the civil service serves as cabinet secretary and attends cabinet meetings to ensure smooth coordination.
The office’s scope and priorities can vary depending on the prime minister’s needs. For example, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Cabinet Office established the Rapid Response Unit, which focused on managing misinformation by collaborating with social media platforms, like Facebook, to block false narratives.
Significance and Extent of Power
Significance:
• The Cabinet Office plays a vital role in ensuring the efficient functioning of government by providing administrative and coordination support.
• It acts as the central body for aligning government departments and facilitating policy decision-making.
• The cabinet secretary serves as an influential figure in advising the prime minister and maintaining cabinet coherence.
Extent of Power:
• Although it provides significant support, the Cabinet Office’s power is indirect; it doesn’t make policy decisions but helps facilitate their creation and execution.
• The role of the Cabinet Office and its specific functions can be adjusted by the prime minister in response to pressing issues, reflecting the adaptability and responsiveness of government.
Explain and analyse the Prime Minister power as Party leader:
Party Leader
As party leader, the prime minister has the advantage of additional resources, particularly the backing of their party’s majority in Parliament, which helps ensure the passage of their policies and legislation. The prime minister’s authority is further legitimized by their election through MPs and party members. This provides a strong foundation for their leadership, as the party understands that internal divisions and constant criticism of the leader can undermine the party’s chances in future elections.
However, party loyalty is not absolute. Several prime ministers, most notably Margaret Thatcher, were ousted by their own MPs. In 1995, John Major called a leadership contest as a way to handle rising opposition from the Eurosceptic faction within his party. Despite winning, Major faced significant opposition, with a quarter of his MPs backing his rival, John Redwood. Other prime ministers, including Blair, Brown, and May, also faced challenges from within their own party, often spurred by internal disagreements or dissatisfaction with their leadership. For example, in December 2018, Theresa May survived a leadership challenge but did so with a significant portion of her party—117 MPs—voting against her, highlighting deep discontent with her performance.
Party divisions can also influence the prime minister’s policy decisions. For example, David Cameron’s leadership was shaped by Eurosceptic rebellions within his party, leading him to promise an in/out referendum on EU membership.
Significance and Extent of Power
Significance:
• The prime minister’s position as party leader provides significant political legitimacy and facilitates the passage of key policies due to party support.
• The leader’s control over party resources, including whipping support, is crucial for ensuring the success of their agenda in Parliament.
Extent of Power:
• While the prime minister has the support of their party, this power is contingent upon maintaining party loyalty. Internal rebellion or discontent can lead to leadership challenges.
• Party unity is essential for a prime minister to wield effective power, but factions within the party can directly influence both their policy decisions and their tenure as leader.
Explain and analyse the Prime Ministers power of Dispensing honours:
Dispensing Honours
As part of their prerogative powers, prime ministers have the ability to award life peerages to former MPs or loyal party supporters. This power is often employed to influence the balance of the House of Lords, helping the governing party by appointing individuals who align with its views. For example, Blair and Brown appointed a total of 173 Labour peers, but only allowed 66 Conservative nominations. In contrast, Cameron and May appointed 136 Conservative life peers while only permitting 59 Labour peers.
An independent Appointments Commission oversees the awarding of non-political peerages and vets all political nominations to ensure they meet standards of propriety. Propriety is defined as the nominee being in good standing with both the community and regulatory authorities, and their past conduct not bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.
Despite these checks, Cameron’s resignation honours list in August 2016 sparked controversy, with headlines such as the Independent stating, “David Cameron’s honours list would embarrass a medieval court.” The list included 46 of his former aides, ministers, and advisers, including George Osborne, who received the rare Companion of Honour. Additionally, donors to the Conservative Party, such as Andrew Cook, who gave over £1 million, were granted honours, raising concerns of cronyism and the practice of ‘cash for honours’.
More recently, Johnson’s awarding of a peerage to his brother, Jo Johnson, in 2020 was also met with criticism.
Significance and Extent of Power
Significance:
• The power to dispense honours, especially life peerages, allows prime ministers to reward loyalty, influence the composition of the House of Lords, and strengthen their political base.
• It provides a way to enhance party unity and secure the loyalty of generous donors and influential figures.
Extent of Power:
• While prime ministers have discretion over awarding honours, they must navigate potential public scrutiny and accusations of cronyism.
• The role of the Appointments Commission places a check on the use of this power by vetting nominees, though prime ministers can still use it for political advantage.
• The practice can backfire if overused or perceived as corrupt, as seen with Cameron’s resignation honours and Johnson’s peerage award to his brother.
Explain and analyse the Personal and Political Powers of the Prime Minister:
Personal and political powers are difficult to quantify compared to formal institutional powers, but they play a critical role in enabling a prime minister to dominate their cabinet and government. The most significant element is political capital—the trust and loyalty a prime minister can command, based on previous successes or strategic decisions. When prime ministers take high-risk actions and succeed, their political capital increases. Conversely, when they make mistakes or miscalculate, their authority can decline. Exercising good political judgment is key to a prime minister’s continued tenure.
Some key examples of prime ministers leveraging political capital include:
- Margaret Thatcher (1982) – The Falklands War
Thatcher’s decision to engage in a military operation to reclaim the Falkland Islands from Argentina was a high-risk move that could have had significant political consequences if it failed. The 10-week conflict resulted in a decisive victory for Britain, greatly enhancing Thatcher’s political capital. This success was instrumental in her victory in the 1983 general election, where she won by a landslide, consolidating her authority both within the Conservative Party and in the country. The Falklands War demonstrated her resolve, bolstering her image as a strong leader and significantly strengthening her position against any internal party opposition.
Significance:
• Thatcher’s success in the Falklands war was a turning point that enhanced her political capital, cementing her leadership within the Conservative Party.
• It demonstrated her resolve and political courage, which allowed her to make bold decisions without hesitation, greatly shaping her legacy.
- David Cameron (2014) – Scottish Independence Referendum
In 2014, Cameron faced a significant political gamble by agreeing to a referendum on Scottish independence. Although he was a firm supporter of the Union, Cameron chose to engage in the debate directly, campaigning for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. The Scottish independence vote ultimately resulted in a win for the Union, with Scotland choosing to stay within the UK. This decision not only secured his political standing but also demonstrated his ability to make difficult decisions and lead a successful campaign under pressure.
Significance:
• Cameron’s handling of the Scottish independence referendum enhanced his political capital and boosted his standing both within the Conservative Party and among the electorate.
• By taking on a high-stakes issue and winning, he solidified his leadership credentials and demonstrated his capacity to lead in challenging political environments.
- Tony Blair (2001 & 2005) – Early Elections
Blair’s decision to call early elections in 2001 and 2005 was a strategic move aimed at consolidating his position within the Labour Party. After his initial victory in 1997, he faced challenges from both internal party factions and external political forces. By securing additional mandates through early elections, Blair strengthened his position as leader of the Labour Party and in the broader political landscape. However, his later years in office were marred by internal dissent, particularly over his decision to invade Iraq, which led to diminishing political capital, despite his electoral victories.
Significance:
• Blair’s decision to call early elections secured his authority within the Labour Party, solidified his leadership, and ensured continued political dominance in the UK.
• The 2001 and 2005 victories showed Blair’s political savvy and ability to navigate internal party dynamics, although his later decisions, particularly regarding the Iraq War, would eventually undermine his political capital.
Significance and Extent of Power
Significance:
• Political capital is an essential tool for prime ministers, allowing them to navigate internal party dynamics and lead on policy issues.
• The prime minister’s ability to make high-risk, high-reward decisions can significantly impact their standing both within the party and with the electorate.
• Success in handling crises or major national issues greatly enhances a prime minister’s authority and influence.
Extent of Power:
• Political capital is finite: While it can be used to enhance a prime minister’s power, it is vulnerable to missteps, failures, or unpopular decisions.
• A prime minister who overestimates their political capital or fails to manage internal dissent risks weakening their leadership and creating divisions within the party.
• Prime ministers must use their political capital wisely, avoiding the creation of an echo chamber within their leadership and ensuring they remain connected with broader party and public sentiment.
Explain and analyse the powers and recourses of the cabinet:
The Powers and Resources of the Cabinet
While the prime minister holds significant power, the cabinet also plays an important role in the UK’s political system. However, compared to the prime minister, the cabinet has fewer resources, and its members’ positions are entirely dependent on the prime minister’s decision-making. Too much dissent within the cabinet can lead to marginalisation or demotion during reshuffles. However, ministers are far from powerless, and they do have certain tools at their disposal to influence policy and provide a check on the prime minister’s authority.
- Autonomy Over Departments
Ministers head their own departments and generally have a fair degree of autonomy over the day-to-day running of their portfolios. Although they adhere to broad government policies, they are often responsible for making key policy decisions within their area. Prime ministers are unlikely to micromanage every aspect of each department, especially when it comes to complex policies. For instance, when it comes to large projects like the 2012 London Olympics or the Universal Credit rollout, prime ministers set the broader direction but allow ministers to manage the intricate details themselves.
Significance:
• Ministers are not puppets of the prime minister, they retain substantial influence over their own areas.
• This autonomy allows departmental power to persist within the cabinet, limiting the prime minister’s ability to micromanage and concentrate power solely in the executive office.
- Media and Pressure Group Influence
Cabinet ministers also wield significant power through media links and connections to key pressure groups. In some cases, ministers may even leak information or brief journalists to challenge policies that the prime minister wants to pursue. A notable example of this was in 2019, when Gavin Williamson, the Defence Secretary, was accused of leaking details about national security meetings regarding Huawei’s role in the UK’s 5G network. Williamson allegedly leaked the information to undermine the policy, although he denied the accusations.
Significance:
• Leaking information or briefing journalists represents a powerful means of undermining government policy and exerting influence within the cabinet.
• Ministers can use their media connections to advocate for their preferred policies, which can create tensions with the prime minister.
- Reshuffle Resistance
Powerful ministers can also resist reshuffles. For instance, in January 2018, Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, refused to accept a reshuffle that would have moved him from his post. After lengthy discussions, he was given an enhanced role, which added social care to his portfolio. This episode demonstrated that ministers, particularly those with strong political capital or public support, can resist the prime minister’s authority and negotiate for more power.
Significance:
• Ministers with significant influence, whether due to their performance or position within the party, can resist changes that would limit their role.
• This can be a sign of a weakened prime minister, particularly if they are unable to easily manage reshuffles or maintain strong control over cabinet appointments.
- Cabinet Meetings and Debate
Cabinet meetings can provide an opportunity for debate and discussion, where ministers can express their views and influence policy decisions. While prime ministers often use these meetings to gauge opinions and reflect before committing to major policy changes, cabinet discussions can sometimes lead to significant changes or pushback against the prime minister’s proposals.
Significance:
• Cabinet ministers use these meetings to assert influence and push for their own policy priorities.
• Even though the prime minister may dominate the agenda, cabinet dynamics and discussion can shape important decisions.
- The Power of Resignation
Perhaps the most powerful tool available to cabinet ministers is the option to resign. This is particularly significant when a large number of ministers resign, as it can signal weakness within the government and a divided cabinet. Resignations can have a significant impact on the prime minister’s political standing, as they expose discontent and can lead to perceptions of weak leadership. For example, during Theresa May’s tenure, several ministers resigned over her handling of Brexit, leading to criticism of her leadership.
Significance:
• Resignations are a direct challenge to the authority of the prime minister.
• A wave of resignations typically indicates a divided government and can undermine the prime minister’s authority both within the party and in public perception.
Conclusion
The relationship between the prime minister and the cabinet is complex. While the prime minister holds the most significant power, the cabinet’s ability to influence policies, resist reshuffles, and exert pressure through the media or even resignations makes it a critical part of the UK government. The dynamic between the two is essential to the functioning of the government, and when cabinet ministers feel sidelined or discontented, the power balance can shift. Ultimately, a successful prime minister must manage the diverse interests of cabinet ministers while maintaining unity within the government. Failure to do so can result in internal strife and diminished political capital, which may ultimately lead to the prime minister’s downfall.
Does cabinet government still exist?
No.
NO – Cabinet Government No Longer Exists
1. Decisions Made at Cabinet Committee Level or Bilateral Meetings:
• Increasingly, many decisions are made at the cabinet committee level or in smaller bilateral meetings rather than in full cabinet discussions, which diminishes the role of cabinet as a collective decision-making body.
• Example: Cameron and May’s Cabinet: Under both David Cameron and Theresa May, key policy decisions were often taken by smaller committees or in direct discussions between the prime minister and key ministers. For instance, under Cameron, key Brexit decisions were often discussed in smaller EU advisory committees rather than in full cabinet.
2. Brief Cabinet Meetings Used to Resolve Disputes:
• Cabinet meetings often have a short duration, sometimes lasting only 30 minutes, and are primarily used to resolve disputes or arbitrate between departments. As a result, cabinet no longer serves as a venue for substantial policy debate.
• Example: May’s Government on Brexit: During May’s leadership, cabinet meetings were often used more as forums to resolve internal disputes about Brexit rather than a space for thorough discussion of all government policies. The complexity and urgency of Brexit discussions led to many policy issues being dealt with in smaller groups rather than in full cabinet.
3. Prime Ministers Can Remove Ministers at Will:
• Cabinet ministers are appointed by the prime minister and can be sacked or demoted at the prime minister’s discretion, particularly if they fail to perform well in parliament or if they resist the prime minister’s agenda.
• Example: Theresa May’s Reshuffles: May’s reshuffles saw her remove ministers who opposed her Brexit approach. For instance, she sacked Boris Johnson and David Davis from their cabinet positions after they resigned in 2018, demonstrating the prime minister’s ability to shape the cabinet to support her policies.
4. Prime Ministers Can Create a ‘Cabinet of Compliance’:
• Over time, prime ministers can create a cabinet of compliance by reshuffling ministers to ensure loyalty and remove potential opposition.
• Example: Tony Blair’s Control Over Cabinet: Blair had a tight grip on his cabinet, especially after 1997, and many ministers either aligned themselves with him or were removed. This trend was evident in Blair’s reshuffles as he sought to create a loyal, supportive cabinet that would follow his policies, particularly on issues like the Iraq War.
5. The Cabinet Office and Special Advisers Bypass Cabinet:
• Cabinet Office and special advisers increasingly provide research and policy advice across departments, bypassing the formal cabinet structure. This makes the traditional role of cabinet less significant in influencing day-to-day policy.
• Example: Downing Street Control under Blair: Under Blair, much of the policy agenda was driven through Number 10 and special advisers, who bypassed the cabinet system. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, established by Blair, helped to centralize power and decision-making at the heart of government, undermining the traditional role of the cabinet.
The relationship between the prime minister and cabinet, Key points:
Why Cabinet Government Can Be Fractious:
- Political Parties Are Broad-Based and Contain a Variety of Views
• Factions Emerge Within the Party:
• Prime ministers must juggle different factions within the same party, often with opposing views on major policies, such as the Brexit debate under Theresa May, which saw divisions between Brexiteers and Remainers. This created tensions within the cabinet as ministers sought to promote their own factions’ interests.
• Internal Conflict:
• The existence of factions can lead to internal conflict within cabinet meetings. For example, while Theresa May had to include both hardline Brexiteers (like Boris Johnson) and more moderate voices, it meant balancing opposing views, leading to disagreements on policy direction.
• Risk of Division:
• Without accommodating all the key strands of party opinion, the prime minister risks party divisions becoming public, weakening the government’s position and potentially leading to cabinet resignations. - Presence of ‘Big Beasts’ in the Cabinet
• Ministers Who Cannot Be Excluded:
• Prime ministers often feel compelled to include senior, popular politicians in their cabinets, even if their presence may cause tension. For instance, Boris Johnson, who was a popular figure in the Conservative Party, was included in Theresa May’s cabinet despite being a vocal critic of her Brexit policies. His presence meant that May had to consider his views even when they conflicted with hers.
• Challenges to Prime Minister’s Authority:
• Big beasts often carry significant personal and political influence, making them hard to control. They can challenge the prime minister’s authority, as seen with David Davis and Boris Johnson when they both resigned from May’s cabinet over her handling of Brexit.
• Potential for Rivalries:
• The inclusion of such high-profile figures can also lead to rivalries within the cabinet. Their personal ambitions and strong egos can create a competitive dynamic, sometimes undermining collective decision-making. - Cabinets Include Ambitious Individuals with Big Egos
• High Ambitions Lead to Rivalries:
• Most cabinet members are ambitious individuals, often with their own political aspirations. This can result in rivalries and power struggles within the cabinet. Blairites and Brownites within Tony Blair’s government are a prime example, with tensions often arising between members loyal to Blair and those aligned with Gordon Brown, especially over economic policy.
• Personal Ambitions Can Conflict with Collective Decision-Making:
• Ministers often prioritize their personal or departmental ambitions over collective unity. For example, ministers lobby for greater departmental funding or push for policy initiatives that benefit their own portfolios, which can create friction within the cabinet.
• Ego-driven Decisions:
• Cabinet members may try to undermine one another to gain an upper hand, particularly when there are competing policy proposals or if ministers have contrasting visions for their departments. - Factions Gather Around Strong Individuals
• Personal Factions Form Around Senior Figures:
• Strong personalities within cabinet often gather supporters who form factions around them. For example, Blairites and Brownites created a distinct split in the Labour Party during Blair’s tenure, with each faction having its own policy agenda and visions for the future. This division within the cabinet led to policy disagreements and personal tensions.
• Policy Division Within Cabinet:
• Factions can lead to differing approaches on major issues, such as economic policy or foreign affairs. The existence of such factions can create policy paralysis or hinder the ability of the prime minister to form a unified position on key issues, as each faction pushes its own agenda.
• Increased Pressure on the Prime Minister:
• The prime minister is under pressure to manage these factions while maintaining party unity. If they fail to do so, they risk political fallout or the disintegration of their cabinet. This is often seen in leadership reshuffles, where ministers are moved around to minimize factional conflict. - Ministers Lobby for Departmental Resources and Priority
• Competition for Resources:
• Each cabinet minister will lobby for more funding or resources for their own department. Whether it’s the NHS, defence, or education, the competition can lead to tensions between ministers, particularly when the prime minister must decide which departments receive more funding.
• Disputes Over Priorities:
• Ministers will push for their departmental priorities to be given precedence over other issues, which can create friction. For example, defence ministers may argue for more military spending, while health ministers push for more resources for the NHS. This often leads to cabinet disagreements and requires the prime minister to make difficult decisions about resource allocation.
• Pressure from External Groups:
• Ministers can also face external pressure from lobby groups or industry representatives, making it harder for them to maintain a united front on policy decisions. For instance, NHS lobbyists may push for more funding, creating tension if other ministers want to prioritize different areas of government expenditure.
• Budget Constraints and Tensions:
• In times of financial difficulty or budget cuts, these disputes over resources become more intense, and ministers may feel their departments are not getting the priority they deserve, leading to potential cabinet resignations or backbench dissent.
⸻
Conclusion:
While cabinet government is theoretically intended to be harmonious, the inherent tensions between competing factions, egos, ambitions, and departmental priorities often result in a fractious and sometimes unstable relationship between the prime minister and their cabinet. The prime minister must navigate these challenges, balancing different factions and managing powerful individuals while ensuring that their government remains united and functional. This dynamic is one of the key reasons why cabinets are often seen as a source of both power and potential weakness for prime ministers.
The difference between individual and collective ministerial responsibility.
Individual vs. Collective Ministerial Responsibility
Ministers have two key responsibilities: individual and collective.
• Individual Ministerial Responsibility: Ministers are accountable for their own department’s actions, decisions, and policies. If issues arise within their department, they must take responsibility and may need to resign. For example, Priti Patel resigned as Home Secretary in 2017 over unofficial meetings with Israeli officials.
• Collective Ministerial Responsibility: All cabinet ministers share responsibility for government decisions. Once a policy is agreed upon, ministers must publicly support it, even if they disagree privately. If a minister cannot support a policy, they are expected to resign, as Robin Cook did in 2003 over the Iraq war.
Significance and Power Limitations:
• Significance:
• These principles ensure accountability and government unity, holding ministers responsible for actions.
• Resignations maintain the integrity of government and prevent blame-shifting.
• Power Limitations:
• Collective responsibility limits ministers’ freedom of speech, requiring public support for policies they might disagree with.
• Individual responsibility can lead to resignations, destabilizing the government if ministers step down over mistakes.
Individual responsibility:
- The requirement that all ministers are responsible for their own actions while in
public office. Where they fall short, they are expected to offer to resign.
Ministerial accountability:
- The convention that ministers must explain and justify their actions and decisions, particularly before parliament and its committees.
Summary:
Individual (ministerial) responsibility
+ The notion that each minister is personally responsible for the actions and
prime ministel
outcomes in their department.
+ Involves answering questions in the Commons and in the media on behalf
of their department.
+ In theory, mistakes and policy failures in a department could lead to a minister resigning. In practice, this is rare and ministers tend to resign for other reasons.
: * Last eno dil evade head ote oute agore For example y
failures to civil servants or heads of executive agencies. For example, in 2020 it was the chief civil servant at the Department for Education, Jonathan Slater, who was sacked following the row over the awarding of GCSE and A-level grades that summer. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson stayed in post until removed in a cabinet reshuffle in September 2021.
+ Ministers whose personal conduct falls below that expected of someone in public life and/or breaches the Ministerial Code would be expected to resign or face dismissal by the prime minister. This is often linked to personal scandal. The Ministerial Code was first issued in 2010. Key principles include:
+ avoiding any conflict of interest between private interests and public
duties
+ not accepting any gifts or offers of hospitality that could be construed
as bribery or attempting to influence decisions + upholding the principle of civil service impartiality + abiding by the principles of collective cabinet responsibility + not meeting foreign dignitaries or politicians without the prime minister’s permission and without civil servants present.
On occasion, even the prime minister has been accused of breaching the Ministerial Code. This accusation was levelled against Boris Johnson in 2021 over an anonymous donation of £60,000 to help fund refurbishment of the prime minister’s private Downing Street flat.
Collective cabinet responsibility
+ The convention that all ministers, and not just those in the cabinet, are bound by government policies and must defend and promote them in public.
+ A minister who cannot in good conscience agree with government policy
should resign.
+ Occasionally, collective cabinet responsibility is suspended by the prime minister when there are clear and open divisions within the cabinet. This is principally true of EU membership. Both Harold Wilson (Labour prime minister 1964-70 and 1974-6) and David Cameron formally suspended it before referendums on continued membership of the EEC/EU.
+ Free votes, such as those on issues of conscience, are also not normally
bound by the convention.
+ Occasionally, ministers can publicly breach collective cabinet responsibility and survive. For example, Ken Clarke and Theresa May made conflicting statements about the future of the Human Rights Act in 2010-11.
+ Some ministers secretly breach collective cabinet responsibility by speaking to journalists off the record or by leaking documents to the press.
+ In January 2018, Boris Johnson was criticised for revealing in advance that he would argue at cabinet for £5 billion extra to be spent on the NHS.
+ It enables the prime minister and government to present a strong and united front to the media, the public and their backbenchers.
Explain and analyse the importance of collective responsibility.
The Importance of Collective Responsibility
Collective responsibility is central to cabinet government. It ensures that the government speaks with one voice, presenting a united front to parliament, the public, and the media. It requires all ministers, both senior and junior, to publicly support and defend government policies. Without it, the government would appear divided and chaotic, unable to lead or fulfill its promises.
While there may be strong debates and divisions within cabinet meetings, these remain private, with the principle of “what happens in cabinet stays in cabinet.” Ministers who cannot support the collective stance are expected to resign and voice their concerns from the backbenches. However, collective responsibility is not always absolute or unbreakable.
Significance:
• Ensures unity within government and a strong, cohesive public image.
• Prevents policy confusion by ensuring ministers align publicly with government positions.
• Helps maintain trust in the government by presenting a united front, even if private disagreements exist.
Anything Else/Conclusion:
• Collective responsibility holds ministers accountable for supporting government decisions publicly, regardless of private opinions.
• While generally adhered to, this principle can be tested in situations where ministers disagree with major government policies, leading to resignations or public confrontations.
• It’s a key principle that upholds the integrity and functioning of cabinet government, though it can be flexible depending on the situation.
Explain and analyse the significance of the Suspension of Collective Responsibility.
Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan remarked in 1977: “I certainly think that the doctrine should apply, except in cases where I announce it does not.” This highlights how collective responsibility can be temporarily suspended in certain situations. As the Cabinet Manual states, all government members are bound by collective responsibility unless explicitly set aside. There have been several instances when this principle has been suspended:
• 1975 and 2016 EU Referendums: Ministers were allowed to take opposing positions on the UK’s membership of the EU.
• 2016 Heathrow Runway Decision: Ministers could express differing views on the controversial third runway proposal.
• 2011 Alternative Vote Referendum: Ministers were permitted to disagree publicly on the alternative voting system.
In these instances, disagreement was only allowed on the specific issue at hand, and not on other government policies. These cases reflect political realities and the need for ministers to express differing views in areas where opinion was sharply divided. The suspension of collective responsibility also extends to ensuring that ministers do not publicly criticize each other, especially when it comes to their colleagues in the Cabinet.
In addition to formal suspensions, collective responsibility is sometimes undermined through non-attributable leaks or open dissent. A notable example is Boris Johnson, who between 2016 and 2018 made public comments and wrote articles that undermined government policies, particularly during Brexit negotiations. Despite this, Theresa May did not discipline him, possibly to avoid further issues. Another example occurred in 2018, when Treasury minister Liz Truss criticized her cabinet colleagues and called out their policy positions, particularly on environmental matters.
Significance:
• Flexibility: Shows that collective responsibility can be temporarily suspended when political realities demand it.
• Limits: Allows ministers to voice opposing views on certain issues, helping prevent internal conflicts from escalating publicly.
• Undermining Unity: It also illustrates how the suspension can sometimes undermine government cohesion, as seen with leaks or public criticisms by ministers like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
Anything Else/Conclusion:
• The suspension of collective responsibility is a strategic move to ensure ministers’ differing views can be expressed on controversial issues while maintaining overall cabinet unity.
• However, it can sometimes lead to undermining public trust in the government, especially when ministers openly dissent or leak information.
• Political realities often dictate when this principle can be suspended, and though it helps to address policy divides, it can challenge the notion of a united government.
Explain and analyse the significance of Ministerial Resignations:
Ministers resign for five main reasons:
• Departmental Errors: Accepting blame for mistakes or injustices within their department caused by civil servants or officials.
• Rejection of Collective Responsibility: Resigning due to disagreement with government policy.
• Failure to Deliver a Policy Promise: Stepping down when unable to implement a key commitment.
• Personal Misconduct: Resigning due to scandals or ethical breaches.
• Political Pressure: Resigning after sustained pressure from within the party, parliament, or media.
Ministers rarely resign over policy failure because major policies are collectively agreed upon by cabinet and the prime minister. Acknowledging a failed policy would mean admitting government-wide failure, which is politically damaging. A rare exception is James Callaghan’s resignation as chancellor in 1967 over the devaluation of sterling. However, he was quickly reshuffled to home secretary, showing how ministers can step down without being fully removed from government.
Significance:
• Maintains Government Accountability: Resignations uphold ministerial responsibility and public trust.
• Protects the Prime Minister & Cabinet: Ministers often take responsibility to shield the wider government.
• Reshuffle Strategy: Resignations can lead to cabinet reshuffles rather than outright dismissals.
Conclusion:
Ministerial resignations highlight the balance between individual and collective responsibility. While personal and departmental failures often lead to resignations, policy failures rarely do, as this would implicate the entire government.
CASE STUDY: The 1954 Crichel Down affair and Sir Thomas Dugdale
Accepting Blame for Departmental Errors
This is one of the rarest reasons for ministerial resignation. Ministers often shift responsibility onto civil servants or executive agency heads for operational failures, avoiding direct blame. For instance, no ministers resigned despite critical reports highlighting departmental mistakes over the sale of arms to Iraq (1996) and the BSE crisis (2000).
However, a notable exception is the Crichel Down affair (1954), where Sir Thomas Dugdale resigned as minister of agriculture.
Case Study: The 1954 Crichel Down Affair
• In 1937, 725 acres of farmland in Crichel Down, Dorset, were compulsorily purchased for military use, with a promise to return the land to its original owners once no longer needed.
• Instead, in 1954, the land was re-let at a higher price, breaking the promise.
• An independent inquiry criticised the Department of Agriculture for mishandling the process.
• Sir Thomas Dugdale resigned, taking responsibility, even though evidence at the time did not prove his direct involvement.
• Later, official documents revealed he had some personal responsibility, as he was aware of his officials’ actions but failed to intervene.
This case is one of the few examples where a minister took responsibility for departmental failings rather than deflecting blame.
Significance:
• Upholds Ministerial Responsibility: Dugdale’s resignation reinforced the principle that ministers should be accountable for their department’s actions.
• Contrast with Modern Practice: Today, ministers rarely resign over departmental errors, instead blaming civil servants or inquiry processes.
• Political Shielding: Ministers often survive scandals by arguing they were unaware of failures or by making junior officials take the fall.
Conclusion:
Resignations over departmental failures are exceptional, as ministers usually deflect blame. The Crichel Down affair remains a rare historical case where a minister fully accepted responsibility.
CASE STUDY: Ministerial Resignations Due to Departmental Failures
+
Examples of ministerial resignations
Ministerial Resignations Due to Departmental Failures
While rare, some ministers have resigned for departmental failures, admitting their inability to resolve key issues. However, in modern times, civil servants increasingly take the blame, allowing ministers to remain in office.
Case Study: Claire Perry (2016)
• Rail minister Claire Perry resigned after failing to address overcrowding and reliability issues on parts of the railway network.
• In a Commons debate on Govia Thameslink Railway, she admitted: ‘If I thought it would help by falling on my sword, I would. This feels like a failure.’
• She had previously stated she was ‘often ashamed to be the rail minister’, signalling her frustration over the department’s failures.
Shifting Blame to Civil Servants
In contrast, many resignations today occur at the civil service level, rather than ministers taking responsibility:
• Brodie Clark (2011), head of the UK Border Force, resigned after relaxing border controls without ministerial authorisation.
• Sally Collier (2020), head of Ofqual, resigned over the A-level and GCSE grading fiasco during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, remained in office.
Significance:
• Rare Ministerial Accountability: Claire Perry’s resignation remains one of the few modern examples of a minister accepting direct responsibility for failures.
• Trend of Blaming Civil Servants: Senior officials like Brodie Clark and Sally Collier often take the fall, shielding ministers from resignation.
• Ministerial Survival Tactics: Many ministers avoid resigning by arguing they were unaware of failures or by deflecting blame onto subordinates.
Conclusion:
Ministers today are less likely to resign over departmental failures, with civil servants increasingly taking the blame. Claire Perry’s case is an exception, while the norm is ministerial survival, even amid significant failures.
Cause of Resignation: Personal Misconduct
Priti Patel’s 2017 Resignation as International Development Secretary
• Forced to resign after it was revealed she held 14 unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials while on a private holiday.
• Misled the media, falsely claiming the Foreign Office was aware of the meetings.
• Breached the Ministerial Code by failing to be open and honest.
• Reappointed as Home Secretary in 2019, showing that personal misconduct does not always lead to permanent exclusion from government.
Cause of Resignation: Collective Ministerial Responsibility
Iain Duncan Smith’s 2016 Resignation as Work and Pensions Secretary
• Resigned over planned disability benefit cuts, calling them “a compromise too far.”
• Could not support the policy on principle, highlighting the role of ministerial responsibility in resignations.
• Example of a minister resigning not due to scandal but because of fundamental policy disagreements.
Other examples:
• Robin Cook (2003) – Resigned over opposition to the Iraq War, criticising the lack of international support for military action.
• Caroline Ansell (2020) – Resigned after voting against the government on free school meals funding.
Other Reasons for Ministerial Resignations
• Cabinet reshuffle – Ministers may be removed to bring in “fresh faces” or to better align with the PM’s agenda.
• Underperformance – Poor media performances or Commons appearances can lead to dismissal.
• Ill health – Example: James Brokenshire (2018, 2021) resigned twice due to cancer treatment.
• Personal scandal – The most common reason for forced resignations, usually involving financial or moral misconduct.
• Maria Miller (2014) – Resigned after an expenses scandal.
• Matt Hancock (2021) – Resigned after breaking COVID-19 rules while having an affair; his position became untenable after CCTV footage leaked.
Political Pressure as a Cause of Resignation
• Unlike single-incident scandals, political pressure builds over time.
• Ministers embroiled in controversy and negative publicity may be pressured to resign.
• Some resignations are less about individual failings and more about wider political considerations.
• Example: #MeToo movement led to resignations over sexual misconduct allegations that may not have resulted in resignation in previous decades.
Impact of Ministerial Resignations
• Damages government credibility and implies poor ministerial selection.
• Shows that individual responsibility is often a greater factor in resignations than collective responsibility.
• Ministers with PM support are more likely to survive scandals, while those without it become expendable.
Explain and analyse the significance of ministers unwillingness to accept collective responsibility over policy:
Ministerial Resignations Due to Rejection of Collective Responsibility
Ministers sometimes resign when they strongly oppose a particular policy, even if it does not fall under their department. While rare, these resignations typically occur in response to divisive policies or major political events.
Key Examples:
• Robin Cook & Clare Short (2003) – Resigned from Labour’s frontbench over opposition to the Iraq War.
• Mike Crockart & Jenny Willott (2010) – Liberal Democrat junior ministers who resigned over tuition fee increases.
• Iain Duncan Smith (2016) – Resigned as work and pensions secretary, calling £4 billion in disability benefit cuts ‘indefensible’.
• Brexit Resignations (2018-19) – Over 30 Conservative ministers, including David Davis and Dominic Raab, resigned due to opposition to Theresa May’s Brexit deal.
Unusual Case: Douglas Ross (2020)
• Resigned as Scotland Office minister, not over policy, but in protest at Boris Johnson’s failure to dismiss Dominic Cummings for breaching COVID-19 lockdown rules.
• Stated: ‘I have constituents who didn’t get to say goodbye to loved ones… I cannot in good faith tell them they were all wrong and one senior adviser to the government was right.’
• This was a rare resignation over principle and accountability, rather than direct policy disagreement.
Significance:
• Exposes Internal Party Divisions – Resignations often reflect long-standing ideological splits, such as those seen over Brexit.
• Challenges Collective Responsibility – Ministers undermine the government’s united front, making policy divisions more visible to the public.
• Can Weaken Leadership – High-profile resignations, like David Davis and Dominic Raab, can destabilise a government.
• Resignation Over Principle vs Policy – Most resignations stem from policy disagreements, but Douglas Ross’ case shows how ethical concerns can also force resignations.
Conclusion:
While most ministers stay loyal despite disagreements, resignations over collective responsibility highlight major ideological divides and can weaken government stability.
CASE STUDY: Iain Duncan Smith and Welfare Cuts
Iain Duncan Smith and Welfare Cuts Background:
Iain Duncan Smith (IDS), former Conservative leader (2001–03), served as work and pensions secretary (2010–16). He resigned in March 2016 over planned disability benefit cuts, calling them a “compromise too far” during austerity.
Reasons for Resignation
• Welfare Cuts – IDS opposed disability benefit reductions, arguing cuts should target wealthier pensioners instead.
• Treasury Tensions – He clashed with Chancellor George Osborne over Universal Credit, believing his flagship welfare reform was being undermined.
• Brexit Divide – IDS was a strong Brexiteer, whereas Cameron and Osborne supported Remain.
• Political Timing – After six years in post, IDS may have resigned before being removed in a cabinet reshuffle.
Significance
• Showed ministerial resignations can be politically motivated, not just about policy disagreements.
• Exposed Tory divisions over austerity and Brexit.
• IDS’s departure damaged the government’s welfare reform agenda and weakened Osborne’s position.
Conclusion
• IDS resigned over welfare cuts but had deeper political motives.
• His resignation highlighted internal party conflicts over welfare policy and Brexit.
• Personal rivalries within the government also played a role.
CASE STUDY: Robin Cook and the Iraq War
Robin Cook and the Iraq War Background:
Robin Cook, Labour foreign secretary (1997–2001), resigned in 2003 over Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq with the USA.
Reasons for Resignation
• Opposition to War – Cook argued the UK should act with the UN and European allies, not unilaterally with the USA.
• Multilateralism – He believed military action needed broad international support to be legitimate.
• Criticism of Blair – Suggested Blair’s close relationship with President Bush led to UK involvement under US pressure.
Significance
• One of the most high-profile ministerial resignations in modern UK politics.
• Highlighted Labour’s deep internal divisions over Iraq.
• Undermined Blair’s claims of broad political consensus on the war.
Conclusion
• Cook resigned due to fundamental disagreements over foreign policy.
• His resignation weakened Blair’s credibility and showed the limits of collective responsibility.
• It became a symbol of opposition to the Iraq War, influencing later debates on military intervention.
Inability to Deliver a Policy Promise in Their Own Department
This is a relatively rare cause of ministerial resignation. It occurs when a minister feels they have been undermined by other Whitehall departments or when there is a change in government policy that directly affects their department. Such resignations often involve a resignation on a point of principle but are typically less high-profile than resignations over the refusal to accept collective responsibility (as seen in other case studies).
Key Points:
• Undermined by Other Departments: Ministers may resign when they feel their ability to deliver a policy has been hindered by interference or opposition from other government departments.
• Change in Government Policy: When there is a shift in policy that directly affects their department, ministers may feel compelled to resign, particularly if they disagree with the new direction.
• Resignation on Principle: These resignations often reflect a sense of frustration and betrayal, as ministers are unable to deliver on promises made to the public or within their own department.
Significance:
• Undermines Ministers’ Authority: When a minister is unable to implement policy due to interference, it undermines their authority and credibility within their department.
• Highlights Tensions within Government: These resignations often highlight tensions between different parts of government, revealing power struggles or disagreements over priorities.
• Less Public Attention: Unlike resignations over collective responsibility, resignations due to policy promises are less high-profile but can still indicate deep dissatisfaction within the government.
Conclusion:
While rare, resignations due to the inability to deliver a policy promise highlight issues of ministerial autonomy and the challenges of navigating complex government structures.
CASE STUDY: Tracey Crouch and Fixed-Odds Betting Machines
Tracey Crouch and Fixed-Odds Betting Machines Background:
In 2018, Tracey Crouch resigned as sports minister due to delays in implementing a crackdown on fixed-odds betting machines (FOBTs).
Reasons for Resignation
• Delayed Policy: The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, announced that the reduction in stakes from £100 to £2 for FOBTs would not take effect until October 2019, despite previous government agreement to implement it sooner.
• Moral Objection: Crouch felt the delay was “unjustifiable” and argued it could cost lives, particularly of problem gamblers.
• Undermined by Government: She believed that a previously agreed policy had been deliberately delayed without her agreement, undermining her position as a minister responsible for the policy.
Significance
• Ministerial Autonomy: Crouch’s resignation highlighted the importance of ministers being able to implement policy without undue interference from other parts of government.
• Ethical Stance: Her resignation was driven by an ethical principle, as she felt that delaying the policy would negatively impact vulnerable individuals.
• Highlighting Collective Responsibility: Her resignation letter stressed that ministers must adhere to collective responsibility, but she could not accept a policy delay that went against her wishes within her own portfolio.
Conclusion
• Tracey Crouch’s resignation emphasized the importance of timely policy delivery, particularly in sensitive areas like problem gambling.
• The resignation showcased the tension between ministerial autonomy and government-wide policy decisions.
• It demonstrated how ministers may prioritize principles over political expediency when they feel their department’s key policies are being undermined.
Explain and analyse personal misconduct:
Personal misconduct is the most frequent cause of ministerial resignation and covers a wide range of offences. Broadly, it involves ministers ‘letting the side down’ by breaching the Ministerial Code, which sets out the ethical standards expected of government ministers.
The Seven Principles of the Ministerial Code:
Ministers are expected to uphold the following principles:
1. Selflessness – Ministers must act in the public interest, not for personal or financial gain.
2. Integrity – They must avoid conflicts of interest and declare any personal connections that could influence their decisions.
3. Objectivity – Decisions should be made based on merit and fairness, without bias or discrimination.
4. Accountability – Ministers must be accountable to Parliament and the public for their actions.
5. Openness – They should be transparent about their decisions unless there are clear national security concerns.
6. Honesty – Ministers must be truthful with Parliament and the public.
7. Leadership – They must set an example and challenge poor behaviour when they see it.
Examples of Personal Misconduct Resignations:
• David Blunkett (2004, 2005): Resigned twice from Tony Blair’s government. First, for fast-tracking a visa for his ex-lover’s nanny (integrity breach). Second, for failing to declare a private sector job that created a conflict of interest (objectivity breach).
• Chris Huhne (2012): Resigned after persuading his wife to take his speeding points to avoid a driving ban (honesty breach).
• Brooks Newmark (2014): Resigned after sending explicit images to an undercover journalist, breaching the selflessness and leadership principles.
• Damian Green (2017): Dismissed for lying about pornography found on his computer and inappropriate behaviour towards a young Conservative activist (honesty breach).
• Maria Miller (2014) & David Laws (2010): Resigned after making false expense claims (honesty breach).
Resignations vs. Staying in Office:
Not all breaches of the Ministerial Code lead to resignations. Priti Patel (2020) was found guilty of bullying civil servants, breaching the integrity and accountability principles. However, because she retained the prime minister’s support, she was only required to apologise. This shows that political backing can sometimes allow ministers to remain in office despite misconduct.
Significance:
• Erodes Public Trust – Scandals weaken faith in government integrity.
• Varied Consequences – Some ministers are forced to resign, while others, like Patel, survive with an apology.
• Prime Minister’s Power – The PM ultimately decides whether a minister must resign, meaning political loyalty can outweigh ethical concerns.
Conclusion:
While personal misconduct is the most common reason for resignation, enforcement of the Ministerial Code is inconsistent. Some ministers face serious consequences, while others are protected by political allies.
Case Study: Priti Patel and Unauthorised Meetings (2017)
Priti Patel and Unauthorised Meetings (2017)
In November 2017, Priti Patel was dismissed as International Development Secretary after it was revealed that she had held 14 unofficial meetings with Israeli ministers, businesspeople, and a senior lobbyist while on a private holiday. The meetings were conducted without informing Downing Street or the Foreign Office, violating the Ministerial Code’s requirement for openness and honesty.
Key Issues Leading to Resignation:
1. Lack of Transparency – Patel failed to inform Prime Minister Theresa May of the meetings. Ministers must disclose all foreign engagements, especially when dealing with senior officials from another country.
2. Misleading Statements – When the story broke, Patel gave false claims to The Guardian, stating that then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had been aware of the meetings. This was later proven untrue.
3. Downing Street’s Reaction – After initial media scrutiny, Patel was summoned back from a trip to Uganda and Ethiopia and subsequently forced to resign.
Significance:
• This case highlights the importance of openness and honesty in government dealings, key principles of the Ministerial Code.
• Patel’s misrepresentation of events rather than the meetings themselves was the primary reason for her dismissal.
• This reflects a broader pattern in ministerial resignations, where the cover-up or dishonesty is often more damaging than the original offence.
Resignation vs. Political Survival:
Despite her dismissal, Patel’s case was an example of temporary exclusion rather than permanent political downfall. In July 2019, when Boris Johnson became prime minister, he reappointed Patel as Home Secretary, demonstrating how political loyalty and shifting leadership can allow ministers to return to high office.
Link to Personal Misconduct:
Patel’s case is a clear example of personal misconduct, as she violated the honesty and openness principles of the Ministerial Code. However, her swift return to Cabinet highlights the inconsistency in how personal misconduct is handled—some ministers, like Patel, recover politically, while others are permanently sidelined. This shows that political support from the prime minister can sometimes outweigh breaches of ministerial ethics.
Explain and analyse Political Pressure as a Cause of Resignation
Political Pressure as a Cause of Resignation
Political pressure is one of the more difficult causes of ministerial resignation to define, as it does not always stem from a single scandal or policy failure. Instead, it occurs when a minister becomes increasingly entangled in controversy or negative publicity over a period of time, making their position untenable.
Unlike resignations based on personal misconduct or policy disagreements, resignations due to political pressure often reflect wider political circumstances. For example:
• The #MeToo movement led to greater scrutiny of sexual harassment allegations, making it harder for ministers accused of misconduct to remain in office.
• The 2009 expenses scandal resulted in widespread resignations, as public outrage made it politically impossible for MPs to stay in their positions.
• A prime minister’s willingness to defend or abandon a minister under pressure is often crucial in determining their fate. Ministers who retain PM support can survive scandals that might otherwise force others to resign.
Notable Example: Simon Clarke (2020)
While many resignations are politically motivated, some are more personal. In September 2020, Simon Clarke resigned as Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government, citing the difficulty of balancing his personal life with the demands of office. This was not due to scandal or political controversy, but rather an acknowledgment of the intense pressure that comes with ministerial responsibility.
Impact on Government
Regardless of the reason, any ministerial resignation weakens a government by:
1. Implying poor judgment in ministerial appointments.
2. Creating instability within the Cabinet.
3. Providing political ammunition to the opposition.
Ultimately, while individual responsibility is often the primary driver of resignations, political survival depends on the prime minister’s support. A minister facing controversy is far more likely to survive if the PM is willing to back them, but once that support is withdrawn, resignation becomes inevitable.
Explain and analyse the Accountability of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to Parliament
The Accountability of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to Parliament
Despite frequent claims that modern prime ministers behave in a ‘presidential’ manner, they remain fundamentally accountable to Parliament. This accountability operates through several key mechanisms, ensuring that both the prime minister and their cabinet must answer for their decisions and policies. However, there is ongoing debate about how effectively these mechanisms function in practice.
Mechanisms of Accountability
1. Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) – The weekly session in the House of Commons allows MPs, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to directly challenge the prime minister on government policies and decisions. However, PMQs is often criticised as being more about political point-scoring than genuine scrutiny.
2. Ministerial Statements – Ministers (including the prime minister) are required to make formal statements to Parliament on major policy decisions or events, allowing MPs to question them. However, some governments have been accused of avoiding scrutiny by announcing policies via the media before addressing Parliament.
3. Select Committees – Committees such as the Liaison Committee (which directly questions the prime minister) and departmental select committees play a vital role in scrutinising government actions. These committees provide detailed, evidence-based scrutiny, but their effectiveness can be limited if ministers are uncooperative or provide vague answers.
4. Votes of Confidence – Parliament holds the power to remove a prime minister through a vote of no confidence, which can lead to the government’s resignation or a general election. However, with large majorities, prime ministers are often secure from immediate accountability.
Debate Over Effectiveness
• Increased ‘Presidential’ Style – Some argue that modern prime ministers operate more like executive presidents, dominating the Cabinet and using the media to appeal directly to the public rather than relying on Parliament. This weakens parliamentary accountability as power becomes concentrated in No. 10.
• Party Loyalty and Majorities – When a government has a large majority, MPs from the ruling party are often reluctant to challenge the prime minister or cabinet, reducing the effectiveness of scrutiny.
• Avoidance Tactics – Some prime ministers limit their appearances before select committees, rely on pre-prepared soundbites during PMQs, or bypass Parliament altogether when making key announcements.
Conclusion
While the prime minister and cabinet remain formally accountable to Parliament, the effectiveness of this accountability varies depending on factors such as the size of the government’s majority, the strength of opposition parties, and the prime minister’s willingness to engage with scrutiny. Although mechanisms like PMQs, select committees, and ministerial statements exist, in practice, they are often seen as insufficient in holding the government to account, especially in an era of strong party discipline and media-driven politics.
Debate: Is the Executive Largely Unaccountable to Parliament?
Debate: Is the Executive Largely Unaccountable to Parliament?
Yes, the Executive is Largely Unaccountable
• PMQs and ministerial answers prioritise style over substance
• Ministers avoid difficult questions, relying on rehearsed responses rather than genuine scrutiny.
• PMQs often become partisan point-scoring rather than a tool for accountability.
• The principles of accountability are open to interpretation
• Ministers can claim ignorance of errors, making accountability difficult to enforce.
• If backed by the prime minister, they often avoid resignation (e.g., Priti Patel, 2020).
• Select committees have little power
• They scrutinise ministers but lack enforcement mechanisms.
• Ministers can provide vague or evasive answers with no guarantee of consequences.
• Party loyalty limits accountability
• Government MPs rarely challenge ministers due to party discipline and career concerns.
• The whipping system ensures limited parliamentary rebellion.
No, the Executive is Accountable to Parliament
• PMQs and ministerial questions expose ministers to scrutiny
• These sessions are televised, increasing public accountability.
• A poor performance can damage credibility and weaken authority (e.g., May over Brexit).
• The Ministerial Code enforces ethical standards
• Ministers must provide accurate information and resign if they mislead Parliament (e.g., Peter Mandelson, 1998).
• The code sets clear expectations for ministerial conduct.
• Select committees can be highly effective
• Committees like the Public Accounts Committee conduct in-depth investigations.
• Strong questioning and media coverage expose government failings.
• Prime ministers must maintain parliamentary support
• Losing party support can force resignation (e.g., Boris Johnson, 2022).
• Former ministers (e.g., Heseltine vs. Thatcher, Howe vs. Major) have successfully challenged leaders.
Conclusion
While formal accountability mechanisms exist, party loyalty, evasive responses, and prime ministerial control weaken parliamentary scrutiny. However, select committees, media scrutiny, and leadership challenges remain important checks on the executive.
Explain and analyse Relations between government and parliament:
Relations Between Government and Parliament: Theory vs. Reality
Theory
1. Government Accountability to Parliament:
• The government is expected to be checked and answerable to parliament. Ministers are personally accountable, especially through oral questions in the House of Commons, where they must justify their actions and decisions.
2. Legislative Efficiency:
• A government with a working majority should find it relatively easy to pass legislation. The power of party whips ensures party discipline, and the limited power of the House of Lords further facilitates this process.
Reality
1. Avoidance of Effective Scrutiny:
• Party Loyalties: Party loyalties and the theatrical nature of parliamentary procedures, particularly Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), often result in ineffective scrutiny. Rather than addressing substantive issues, PMQs can devolve into showdowns that prioritize political point-scoring over policy.
• Select Committees and the NAO: The most effective scrutiny comes from bodies like select committees and the National Audit Office (NAO), which can conduct thorough investigations. For example, in 2021, the NAO produced a report on the Crossrail project, highlighting a shortfall in funding between £30 million and £218 million, an issue not directly addressed through parliamentary questioning.
2. Ministerial Accountability:
• Ministers rarely take personal responsibility for departmental failings. While they are expected to uphold individual ministerial responsibility, they more commonly resign over personal scandals or breaches of ministerial conduct rather than for policy mistakes or failure to accept collective cabinet responsibility.
3. Challenges in Legislative Passage:
• While a government with a strong majority is typically able to pass legislation, the growing willingness of backbenchers to rebel can disrupt this process. If the government has a slim majority or faces criticism within its own party, policies may face opposition or delays in the House of Commons.
Conclusion
The theory of government accountability and parliamentary scrutiny is often challenged by the realities of political dynamics, party loyalty, and the limitations of parliamentary procedures. While mechanisms such as select committees and the NAO provide more thorough scrutiny, ministers are seldom held fully accountable for departmental failings, and backbench rebellions can cause instability even for majority governments.
