the executive knowledge flashcards

It is the sole responsibility of the Prime Minister to appoint and dismiss Cabinet members. In constructing the Cabinet, the Prime Minister is engaged in three tasks:

• Selecting the most senior ministers, such as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. 

• Constructing the ‘second rank’ of Cabinet ministers team who will lead the smaller government departments. 

• Ensuring ‘the whole Cabinet’ will perform as both a functioning executive team, but will also be broadly popular in the party.

Another role for the PM: they will also need to select junior ministers, with a view to …

providing support for senior ministers, but also to promote ‘younger talent’ in the party, and reward loyalty from backbenchers

The PM has a number of considerations to take into account. The power of appointment and dismissal may be used to strengthen the personal position of the Prime Minister. For example: 

• A Prime Minister always wishes to ensure that he or she has close allies in the Cabinet.

• With regard to power over policy, the Prime Minister can influence a department greatly by installing a minister whose views agree with his own.  

• A  PM may wish to keep a colleague he/she mistrusts out of a sensitive or powerful post.  

• There might be senior members of the ruling party who are so experienced and popular that to exclude them would be unthinkable.

However, PMs must consider restrictions placed on their choices. For example (i):

• A Prime Minister may need to design a 'balanced' Cabinet, designed to unify the party and ensure moderate policies.   A leading politician might need to have a position, to satisfy his or her supporters within the party. 

• It is always a temptation for a PM to promote a leading rebel or two in order to 'buy their silence'. 

• A Prime Minister is restricted by the framework he/she inherits.  A new unelected PM like Sunak would be unwise to sack much of the old Cabinet.  For Labour, Blair was constrained by the fact Labour used to hold whole party ‘Shadow Minister’ elections - so in 1997 he was forced to appoint a number of people as ministers he didn’t rate.  Although these elections didn’t apply when Labour was in power, and were abolished in 2011, the role of Deputy Labour leader is still elected, and so in 2024 Keir Starmer would be expected to give Angela Rayner an important role.

However, PMs must consider restrictions placed on their choices. For example (ii)

• The specific requirements of certain posts limit the Prime Minister.   The Lord Chancellor must be a lawyer, and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales ought to come from those countries. 

• There are ministers who have enjoyed an excellent record as managers of their departments. It may be, then, that such a 'safe pair of hands' is an automatic choice. 

• There are also restraints on the ability of a Prime Minister to dismiss ministers.  Dismissal is a two-edged weapon. Any sacked minister colleague is a potential focus for backbench dissent.  The governing party is made to look weak and unhappy.   For example former Home Secretary Suella Braveman was a fierce critic of Rishi Sunak, especially in regard to immigration policy, once he had dismissed her in 2023.

While the appointment of ministers to the Cabinet is clearly an important power of the Prime Minister, it is not without its restraints.  Other factors that affect a PMs decision incude (i) future support and alliances:

• E.g. May promoted long term allies Philip Hammond (Chancellor) and Damian Green (Work & Pensions). 

• PMs must be wary of either promoting or ignoring those who backed other leadership candidates in the past or future - ignore them and you make an enemy, include them, and they may support you more… or become a dangerous ‘enemy within’.

• Sunak chose to bring Braverman into his cabinet in 2022-23 possibly because as she aspired to be a future leader, it was better she was in the Cabinet, than criticising it from the outside.

(ii) Political wings of the party:

• E.g. the ‘wing’ of the party e.g. left or right, reformer or traditionalist etc

• May in 2016-19 after the EU Referendum had to bring in enough pro-Leave ministers to satisfy the party

(iii) Level of support within the party:

• Eg. Boris Johnson couldn’t be ignored by May in 2015-18

(iv) Public popularity / the unpopularity of some ministers

E.g. right-wing Conservatives liked Michael Gove, Priti Patel & Suella Braverman.  However within the wider public, were or are they liked?  This creates a tension - promote a ‘darling of the party’ but potentially put off voters.  Despite all the scandals, Johnson remains very popular with some Cons Party members.

(v) Signal given:

Is the PM promoting continuity or signalling change? Keir Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet very largely became the governing Cabinet in 2024.  When he had established the Shadow Cabinet 2020-24 Starmer had focused on change - removing the ‘Old Labour’ politics and figures of the Corbyn era, e.g. sacking the popular left winger Rebecca Long-Bailey over her liking a tweet suggesting a US police - Israeli link, in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder.

(vi) Representative balance of Cabinet - gender / age / ethnicity 

• An important factor - but how much still? Johnson promoted ethnic minorities to the key roles in government including Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary.  Rishi Sunak 'broke the glass ceiling’ to become PM.
  

• Starmer’s 2024 Cabinet had the highest percentage of female ministers ever.  This followed an increase in women in the Cabinet to 34% under May 34% and 30% under Sunak, after the 21st century low of 14% in 2014 during Cameron’s coalition government).

• The ‘optics’ of lacking a gender and ethnic balance nevertheless would need to be considered.

(vii) Experience in relation to specific portfolio given

• Not seemingly a crucial factor in the top jobs, but in more junior roles it may be a consideration. Johnson appointed ex-army officer Johnny Mercer to be Veterans Minister in 2019-21 - not a Cabinet position… but instead a position where the minister attends Cabinet!  (Basically such ministers are there to listen and respond to questions if asked, but not to initiate discussions or take part in decision making).

• Starmer then appointed another ex-army officer in Alistair Carns in 2024 - although it is no longer a Cabinet attending position.  Starmer in 2024 also appointed the experts Patrick Vallance and James Timpson, science and prisons ministers respectively.  However note, these are NOT Cabinet level roles.

• Nick Gibbs is a good example of a junior minister who became an expert in his role through longevity - being Schools Minister for 11 years, in three separate stints, between 2010 and 2023.  

(viii)Nationality 

It is important to try to put a Scot in charge of the Scottish Office and …

someone Welsh in the Welsh Office.  This hasn’t always proved possible for the Conservatives.

(xi) Any actual talent?

Whilst this isn’t unimportant… it’s hardly considered vital, despite the fact they’re doing hugely important jobs.Stories abound of PMs and their advisors privately thinking Cabinet ministers are poor at their jobs.  

• Johnson’s chief advisor Dominic Cummings described then Chancellor, Sajid Javid (former Home Secretary and later Health Secretary) as ‘useless’.  

• Tony Blair apparently felt the same about Jack Straw, despite making him Home Secretary 1997-2001 and then Foreign Secretary 2001-2006.

• When Ed Miliband was leader of the Labour opposition in 2010-15, he famously picked ex-Post Office union official Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor.  Johnson was a popular Labour figure, and seemingly a decent man.  But he found himself out of his depth, and resigned the role quickly, saying his understanding wasn't good enough.

(x) Limited Pool

It is worth bearing in mind worth pointing out how very limited the ‘talent pool’ is for recruiting ministers.PMs can only pick from around 350-400 MPs (& the occasional peer), to do some of the most important jobs in the country. Many MPs will have a decent education and some ability, but not necessarily the skills needed for such a big role (hence the importance of the permanence of the civil service in departments). Also inevitably some MPs are not so talented perhaps being ‘political anoraks’ who maybe lack the necessary social and management skills.  Once in Parliament egoism or power seems to bring out some bad traits or questionable judgements in a surprising number of MPs - making them unsuitable for a government role …

For example between 2019-24 18 MPs were suspended - temporarily or permanently - by their own parties.  High profile examples include:

• In 2023 Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen argued the Covid vaccination programme was “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust”

• In 2023 Conservative MP Mark Menzies in 2023 used campaign funds to pay ‘bad people’ he owed money too after a drugs and / or gay sex party

• In 2020 Labour MP Claudia Webbe in 2020 was convicted in court of the crime of harassment, for her actions around a woman who was allegedly having an affair with her partner.

There are 3 types of Cabinet …

Cabinet Government, Kitchen Cabinet (prime ministerial government) and presidentialism

1. Cabinet Government: how the system is ‘meant’ to work, with the Cabinet being the key decision making body of the executive and the PM only being first amongst equals. A good modern example of this would be …

David Cameron 2010-15 when he led a coalition government.  Here decisions needed to be consensual to be passed.  Even after he won the 2015-16 election, Cameron lacked the desire, will, ability or arguably intellect to drive a more PM dominated government.  Nevertheless even in Cabinet Government there is likely to be an ‘inner Cabinet’since the overall size of Cabinet is seen as too big and unwieldy to effectively drive the main government policy.  Under Cameron 2010-15 this ‘inner Cabinet’ was nicknamed ‘the Quad’ - consisting of Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Lib Dem Deputy Leader Danny Alexander. 

 Kitchen Cabinets / Prime Ministerial Government: Government dominated by an ‘inner group’ - consisting of the PM and a small group of handpicked, trusted advisors to the PM.  Some may be Cabinet ministers, but others could hold posts of seemingly minor importance.  Thatcher and Blair both …

had Kitchen Cabinets.  Power in Blair’s government lay much more with key figures like Peter Mandelson (Minister Without Portfolio) and Alastair Campbell (Press Secretary), than it did with the Cabinet.  His style of Kitchen Cabinet was nicknamed ‘sofa government’.

Presidentialism: A pretty similar model of government power as the Kitchen Cabinet / Prime Ministerial Government model, but with four subtle differences.

1. Even more emphasis on power in the decision making process lying even more strongly in the hands of the PM (and a few trusted advisors)

2. A wider domination of the political system by the single figure of the PM.  They dominate government, party, the media spotlight etc

3. The PM plays a quasi-Head of State role too - like the US or French Presidents play - which enhances their prestige and status - e.g. Blair during the death of Princess Diana 1997.  To a certain extent a Presidential PM tries to be seen as almost ‘above’ the ‘grubby’ day-to-day machinery and machinations of gov and politics.  

4. They create SPATIAL LEADERSHIP - deliberately distancing themselves from their own political party - so they can appeal beyond just traditional Labour / Conservative voters.

Is the PM dominant - Policy-making role:

• The PM determines the main policy objectives of the government e.g. Boris Johnson focused on Brexit, increased defence spending and Levelling Up.  

• They can intervene in ministerial areas to personally direct policy.  They also play a key role in representing the UK in international affairs.

However …

• PMs need to be able to articulate a vision to be able to carry the Cabinet with them in policy.  They will lack the time and expertise to lead developments in a wide range of areas, and will therefore more likely focus on just broad principles or a couple of key policy areas only.  

• Additionally ‘events’ - especially economic crises - can ruin any policy plans, whilst the Supreme Court and judicial reviews can derail government policy too.  Liz Truss’ radical ‘mini-budget’ was completely undone - not by a left-wing ‘blob’ of officials - but  by ‘the international money markets’ which reacted with such horror the UK economy was sent into meltdown, forcing the government into a total u-turn.

Is the PM dominant - Patronage:

• The Cabinet is selected by the PM, as are all junior ministers.  They can place allies in key roles, dismiss ministers and appoint outsiders to important roles in government e.g. Cummings as Johnson’s SPAD.   

• Cabinet careers can be advanced or ruined by the whim of a PM.  This gives the PM significant patronage powers, consolidating their authority within the party, government and Cabinet.

However …

• PMs are restricted by political circumstances in their choices of Cabinet ministers.  They need to prioritise party unity over personal preference or competence.  They also are restricted by the limited pool of talent the party’s MPs offer.  Botched reshuffles create enemies.  

• Cameron had limited patronage in the Coalition government.

Is the PM dominant - Steering the cabinet:

• The PM chairs Cabinet and the key Cabinet Committees, enabling them to steer the development of the government policy.  They also decide which ministers are invited to Cabinet Committees, giving them further control.  

• They can choose to bypass the Cabinet and have direct meetings with ministers to thrash out policy in advance - which can then be presented back for ‘formal’ Cabinet approval, when in reality the decision is a fait accompli.

However …

• Senior ministers may challenge the PM’s policy preferences, and even attempt to undermine their authority.  Ministers can also be territorial - fighting for their department’s interests & resources, rather than prioritising the overall wellbeing of the government.  Senior ministers may cause problems if they feel ignored or bypassed.  

• Additionally Cabinet Committees which feature knowledgeable ministers and experts, may go into such specific policy detail as to move beyond the PM’s understanding.  There are the strongest doubts that Cameron ever understood detailed economics - and therefore he was (happily) compelled to leave finance to George Osborne.   

Is the PM dominant - Party leadership:

• The PM is also the party leader giving them further authority.  

• They will have been elected as party leader by a combination of the national party membership and MPs, giving them legitimacy.

However …

• The support of the party for a PM is not unconditional.  Party rules allow for a leadership challenge - and key Cabinet ministers or ex-Cabinet ministers may secretly build support within the party, to try to overthrow the PM.  Backbench rebellions have become more common in the 2010s and 2020s, compared to previous eras. 

• John Major’s and Theresa May’s times as PM were overshadowed by bitter party divisions over the EU - making it hard to lead.

Is the PM dominant - PMs office and Cabinet office:

• The Cabinet Office and Prime Minister's Office policy unit report directly to the PM.  

• The PM chooses their membership and they play a key role in developing policy (policy unit) and then ensuring departments put it into action (Cabinet Office).

However …

• Whilst these are powerful tools, they inevitably have limited resources.  

• In addition ministers will have the resources of their departments to potentially formulate expert alternatives or critiques of any plans of the PM.

Is the PM dominant - Public standing and media appeal:

• The PM has a much higher profile than any Cabinet minister, and acts as a communicator-in-chief for the government.  The media spotlight is constantly focused on the PM.  Strong communicators like Thatcher, Blair and Johnson can use this to set the political agenda.  

• Additionally in times of national crisis e.g. during Covid-19, the PM plays the key role in both determining strategy and has the potential to become a central figurehead for the country to rally around e.g. Churchill in WWII.

However …

• When a PM loses popularity with the public, their authority within Cabinet can be fatally undermined.  PMs are usually directly blamed for any governmental or ministerial failings.  Ministers and MPs are also constantly calculating how the public mood affects the odds of electoral victory in the next General Election - and may organise a coup, should the PM look too unpopular.  Boris Johnson saw his authority disintegrate due to Partygate and then further scandals.

• The media is very keen to emphasise and exaggerate failures, crises, internal rivalries & rows, and the political machinations around plots against the PM. 

Professor George James’ ‘Elastic band theory of Prime Ministerial power’.  There is no all-encompassing theory on the level of power a PM has - instead it all depends on the political circumstances and context they operate in, as well as their own nature and personality. Calculations of cabinet styles:

• Kitchen Cabinets = 23 years - 1983-90, 1997-2010, 2019-21

• Cabinet Government = 23 years 1979-82, 1991-97, 2010-15, 2016-19, 2022-24

Level of Power - The Cabinet has not been marginalised:

The growth of special advisors and ‘Kitchen Cabinets’ means the Cabinet acts as little more than a ‘rubber stamp’.  PMs rely on other sources for their advice on policy e.g. the Policy Unit within the PM’s Office, or SPADs who report directly to them.  E.g. Blair appointed Jonathan Powell as Downing Street Chief of Staff 1997-2007 & all subsequent PMs have maintained this role, whilst Johnson’s appointed Dominic Cummings to a role of chief advisor and de facto ‘chief of staff’.

Important SPADs and officials often have more power & influence than Cabinet ministers.  Johnson even insisted every other Cabinet minister's SPADs were approved by him - prompting Chancellor Sajid Javid to resign in 2020.

Level of Power - The Cabinet has been marginalised:

Even if a lot of the meaningful debate and the formulation of policy decisions has taken place elsewhere before the Cabinet meets - nevertheless the Cabinet must give its authorisation before a policy can become official government policy. Additionally …

when an unpopular PM or one lacking a decent majority is in power, the Cabinet will be emboldened to challenge their will - for the good of parry and country. Ministers have their own department's resources and own SPADs.  Cameron once said "Number 10 is very small - underpowered - compared to these massive departments of state… you spend far too much time trying to find what the government's actually doing and quite a lot of time trying to stop it."

Decision making - The Cabinet has not been marginalised:

PMs can manipulate decision-making by holding meetings with specific ministers in advance.  This means the policy presented to Cabinet isn’t up for genuine discussion, but is in effect, and already ‘done deal’

Decision making - The Cabinet has been marginalised:

In some cases the Cabinet still makes key decisions - e.g.some Covid era lockdown policies were thrashed out in Cabinet.  A determined Cabinet can overrule a PM. PMs will be reluctant to embark on major new policies without Cabinet backing. Within their own departments, ministers have some autonomy.  PMs can’t micromanage complex projects - e.g. the 2012 delivery of the  London Olympics or the introduction of Universal Credit in 2013.

Controlling the workings of cabinet- The Cabinet has not been marginalised: PM’s shape the Cabinet agenda, chair the meetings and control the debate - giving them the ability to steer decisions towards the side they support.  The PM also sums up the discussion at the end, so ‘official records’ of the meeting may be skewed in the PMs favoured direction.

Cabinet meetings only happen once a week too and often last no longer than 30 minutes  - whilst SPADs and other officials have daily access to the PM.

Controlling the workings of cabinet- The Cabinet has been marginalised: Cabinet usually contains experienced ‘big beasts’ who have their own power bases within the party. They may provide a notable challenge to the PM - being hard to silence & control within Cabinet. 

A PM would worry about sacking them for fear of upsetting parts of the party - e.g.Blair had to tolerate Brown’s hostility & attempts to undermine him, especially post 2005.

Collective responsibility- The Cabinet has not been marginalised:

The PM can use the convention of collective responsibility to silence ministerial dissenters who oppose their policies

Collective responsibility- The Cabinet has been marginalised:

Collective responsibility only applies outside Cabinet meetings - so ministers may robustly challenge & oppose the PM’s within meetings.  In the ‘wider world’ they then may ‘publicly’ support Cabinet decisions, but privately brief journalists and supporters of their opposition - e.g. 2023 Braveman over Sunak’s immigration policy & Gavin Williamson in 2019 who allegedly leaked a Nat Sec memo over Huawei’s role in the UK 5G network.  (He denied this - but was sacked after May didn’t believe him).  

Constrained or enhanced- The Cabinet has not been marginalised:

A PM can pick allies and ideological supporters to build a very supportive team around him.  When the PM can build a Cabinet like this, it allows them to dominate, and strengthens his or her own level of power. Harold Macmillian sacked 3 Chancellors in 6 years… until he got one in1962 who finally ‘adopted my views’!

Constrained or enhanced- The Cabinet has been marginalised:

A PM is only as powerful as their Cabinet allows them to be.  No PM can survive without the Cabinet’s support.  Cabinet withdrawing that support was important in the fall of Thatcher, May,Johnson and to an extent Blair in 2007.  Truss’ exit was confirmed when having sacked her Chancellor Kwarteng, her Home Sec Suella Braveman resigned in opposition to her, & Truss resigned the next day.

Constrained or enhanced- The Cabinet has not been marginalised:

Given the power to appoint, promote, demote or sack any Cabinet minister lies solely with the PM, they should be able to use their power of patronage to firstly build an ideologically supportive ministerial team, and secondly count on their loyalty, since minister’s careers lie in the hands of the PM.

Too much dissent can see a minister demoted.  Additionally a high profile ministerial sacking may show the ‘PM is not to be messed with’  - and bring other ministers into line.  Within 14 days of becoming PM in 2024, Keir Starmer suspended the whip of 7 MPs who backed a non-Labour amendment.  No ministers were involved, but it sent a message to all Labour politicians - including Cabinet members - that the PM wouldn’t tolerate dissent.

Constrained or enhanced- The Cabinet has been marginalised:

A PM must be careful how they use these powers.  Cabinet ‘big beasts’ could create many issues if sacked. Blair found Brown impossible to sack.

May in 2018 tried in a reshuffle to move Jeremy Hunt out of the Health Dept.  He felt in such a strong position he refused to move - May couldn’t afford to sack him, so she backed down.  She also had to tolerate public dissent from her Foreign Sec Boris Johnson over Brexit, as he lined up a leadership bid against her.

Crisis management The Cabinet has not been marginalised:

During emergencies PMs tend to use smaller ‘COBRA’ committees to make decisions.  These will present their policies back to the Cabinet, who’ll be unlikely to challenge ‘expert decisions’ during ‘crises’.  This could be seen in Blair’s response to 2005 7/7 terrorism, or in the 2020-22 Covid crisis - which both restricted civil liberties on national security / public health grounds.

It would be hard for other Cabinet ministers to feel strong or knowledgeable enough to challenge such decisions in such times.  A successfully managed crisis can also greatly boost a PMs power - victory in the Falklands War greatly boosted Thatcher’s stature & self-confidence.

Crisis management The Cabinet has been marginalised:

Members of the Cabinet will be invited on to the COBRA committees if the crisis impacts on the area their department covers.  Therefore some Cabinet ministers will be at the heart of decision-making. The PM will want to create consensus on a ‘crisis policy’ - it would be very hard to see how they could lead a Cabinet towards a policy ‘against their will’ in such times. 

Thatcher was known for her ‘iron will’, but she needed strong Cabinet backing to go to war over the Falkland Islands in 1982. In 2018 May summoned a Cabinet meeting over her planned air strikes in Syria - as she wasn’t asking the Commons for its support, it was vital she got the Cabinet’s backing for the plan before proceeding.

There is yet to be a specific question on Presidentialism, but the concept leaks through into where the balance of power between the PM and executive lies. In recent years, the PM has been accused of …

 acting as a ‘President’- particularly Tony Blair. Prime ministers have become so dominant in the cabinet, and the media has become so obsessed with their characters, that their personal charisma and influence have enabled them to dominate decision making as pseudo-presidential figures.

The presidentialism thesis of British politics dates from the 1960s, when Harold Wislon, an admirer of JFK, confidently utilised television to reach out directly to the public, creating a close relationship between him and the votes. He clearly understood the …

political power of a good photo opportunity and was regularly pictured with celebrities such as the Beatles. This trend, however, can be traced back to the late C19th with William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli, both generating intense personal hatred and devotion. 

• Writer Michael Foley had linked this to ‘spatial leadership’ in which a PM creates their own space by distancing themselves from their party and thereby securing a personal mandate. This enable them to rise above the party and, in a presidential manner, appeal directly to the people. 

• The media’s appetite for celebrity news and their enthusiastic coverage of personal interventions in global crises have further increased the constant spotlight on the PM rather than on the government.

• Wislon, Thatcher and Blair demonstrated presidential tendencies as they had a distinctive political style and knew hot to use the media to reach beyond established party loyalties to those who didn’t traditionally see themselves as either Conservative or Labour supporters. During the Falklands War (1982) and miners’ strikes (1984-5) it was Thatcher, not the cabinet, who provided leadership for the media to focus on. She also won support from many C2 voters who usually vote Labour, demonstrating the strength of her ‘spatial’ appeal as a presidential figure not associated with party allegiances. 

• Blair's rhetoric was highly personal, emphasising his moral focus. He frequently referred to government policy as his own such as ‘the people have entrusted me with the task of leading their country’. The energy with which he intervened in all aspects of government policy, sometimes over the authority of the minister concerned, focused attention further to Blair. His high-profile personal interventions in Northern Ireland were however crucial to the peace process. Similarly, leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, he reached beyond Parliament and put the case for war directly to the public through television and debates. 

• According to the presidential model, the cabinet becomes almost irrelevant to decision making. The PM can increasingly afford to ignore the cabinet - their own mandate directly from the people through public acclamation allows less need  to have their policies legitimised by the cabinet. 

• Blair further enhanced the presidential atmosphere in Downing Street by modelling it on the White House. The new position of chief of staff was established and the PM’s Private Office and Cabinet Office were enlarged to provide greater control from the centre and more ‘joined up’ government. 

• David Cameron also understood the media spotlight. He acted presidentially by associating a specific policy with his personal authority rather than his government. Notably, he publcly and personally put forward the case for same-sex marriage. In the 2014 Scottish IndyRef and the 2016 Brexit referendum he did the same by backing Better Together and Remain. 

• The 2010, 2015 and 2017 GE campaigns all included televised leaders’ debates, displaying the leadership qualities of the candidates. Such are integral to US politics and have been since the Kenendy/Dixon debates in 1960, but are a significant innovation in the UKs system of parliamentary democracy. 

• However, it would be misleading to suggest that PMs are essentially now presidents. The UK remains based on collective ministerial responsibility, meaning a British PM, unlike the US president, possesses no electoral mandate from the public. Their authority depends on having a parliamentary majority and maintaining the support of their parliamentary party. Margaret Thatcher, for example, resigned as PM when she lost the support of her cabinet in 1990.

A British PM is therefore constitutionally incapable of being a president although they can display presidential characteristics if their character and circumstances permit. Others are entirely free of presidential attributes.

• John Major was ill suited to a presidential role - his collegiate approach and declining parliamentary majority made it impossible for him to attain this image.

• Gordon Browns was uncharismatic, such that his colleague Robin Cook once commented that he had ‘a face like a wet winter’s morning in Fife’. 

• Theresa May’s failure to engage with the public during the 2017 GE and the humiliating loss of her majority ensured that she was unable to govern in a presidential fashion. 

• Liz Truss’ lacklustre media appearances and the opposition to her economic policies quickly dispelled the possibility that she would be a presidential PM. 

Harold Wilson Case Study (1):

Dates:1964-1970 and 1974-1976. Majority: 1 in 1964, 48 in 1966, 1 in Oct 1974

Style of leadership: Wilson had socialist principles which were visible in his policies and was regarded as a highly presidential PM who liked to ignore his cabinet and would make key decisions regarding policy within the ‘kitchen cabinet’ style of government

Harold Wilson Case Study (2):

Background:

Harold Wilson was a popular PM during his first few years in office from 1964, and was relatively unchallenged. However, with the value of the pound sinking throughout his incumbency, Wilson’s popularity waned by 1967, as he struggled to increase the value of the pound. As a result, he lost the 1970 general election to the Conservatives, led by Edward Heath. In the February 1974 …

general election, neither side won a majority, but Labour had the most seats. They then called a second general election in October to end the hung Parliament, where they won a majority by one seat. In his second time as PM, he struggled more than the first, with little party unity and great divisions leading to little getting done. However, the final nail in the coffin for Wilson was the European Economic Community, later European Union, referendum in 1975. He only called it due to pressure from within his party, and he didn’t support joining himself. When the public voted to go into the EEC, there was unrest in the party from those who didn’t want to join, and Wilson resigned the following year.

Harold Wilson Case Study (3):

Key events:

• Unemployment passed 1 million under Wilson’s second tenure as PM in 1972.

• One of the key reasons why Wilson won the February 1974 GE was that he promised a referendum on British membership of the EEC.

Key policies:

• Helping working class students gain access to universities.

• Making homosexuality for men legal

• Abolishing the death penalty

Harold Wilson Case Study (4):

Examples of control:

• In Richard Crossman’s book, the Myth of the Cabinet he described the way in which Wilson bypassed cabinet: ‘Cabinet is meeting less and less effectively controlling policy than ever before.

• Barbara Castle, one of the most prominent members of Wilson's cabinet, frequently vented her frustration that Wilson had already decided with his closest advisors what to do before cabinet even met.

Harold Wilson Case Study (4):

Examples of lack of control:

• His party was strongly divided between left and right and his cabinet was full of extraordinarily combative figures, many of whom wanted his job. 

• His dominance of the cabinet and his control of events can be exaggerated. 

• In 1969 Wilson came into conflict with his Cabinet over his plans to introduce legal restrictions on the power of trade unions. The White Paper ‘In Place of Strife’, introduced by the employment secretary Barbara Castle, led to a furious row in cabinet. Opposition from most of the Cabinet including James Callaghan, Home Secretary caused Wilson to go back on this policy. 

• By 1975, Wilson was prepared to support Britain's continued membership of the EEC. However, many Labour Mps opposed membership of the EEC and the cabinet remained divided on the issue of membership. As a result of this Wilson had to allow a free vote by cabinet, acknowledging that on this important issue he could not enforce the principle of collective ministerial responsibility.

Margaret Thatcher Case Study (1):

Dates:

• Came into power in 1979 -  her first cabinet contained a mix of ‘Thatcherites’ and ‘wets’. 

• None were still there when Thatcher left power in 1990

parliamentary majorities

• 1979: 43

• 1983: 144

• 1987: 102

Background:

• Thatcher had became a figurehead of the ‘new right’ political movement

Margaret Thatcher Case Study (2):

Style of leadership:

• she preferred to make decisions with a small group of key advisors who shared political opinions

• Her ideas were based on a clear small-state ideology 

• Radical Right-wing ideologies and monetarist economic policies.  

• gave her name to a new right ideology, Thatcherism.

• overturned the postwar consensus by pursuing monetarism, privatising state-owned industries and reducing trade union power. 

• She didn't promote any women into her cabinets, although she did appoint a handful of female junior ministers, mostly from the house of lords. It is worth noting that there were not a lot of female conservative MPS to draw from in that era, although some were promoted by John Major who had been MPs for some time, such as Virginia Bottomley and Gillian Shephard. 

• Most report that Thatcher had a presidential style, dominating her cabinet

Margaret Thatcher Case Study (3):

Key events:

• 1982: She won the Falklands war- created an image of ‘Iron Lady’ 

• 1984-85: Thatcher's Government’s Colliery (coal mine) closures where over 140,000 miners at one time were striking and over 25 million labour days were lost as a result of the strikes. There was speculation that Thatcher wanted to shut down the coal mines for economic and environmental reasons.

Key policies:

Poll tax:

• Conservatives had long wanted to reform domestic rates, which was mentioned in the 1987 manifesto. It was intended to make a flat rate tax payable by nearly all adults. Thatcher was personally involved with introducing this new tax system, and in 1987 a bill was easily passed, first in Scotland then for the rest of the UK.

• Was very unpopular. Poll tax riots broke out in London and elsewhere, resulting in 113 injuries and 340 arrests. There was also a major campaign of non-payment and civil disobedience. Poll tax proved to be difficult to collect, with high rates of evasion 

• The tax was regressive, taking a higher percentage of income of the poor than the rich

• Checks and balances within the cabinet system failed and warnings from the chancellor and the treasury were not given due consideration. However, Thatcher pushed the proposal through government and parliament without major amendment. By the late 1990 many conservative MPs recognised the electoral damage the policy was causing and voted against her in the Conservative leadership contest. The poll tax was later replaced by the council tax under John Major. 

Gas, electricity and water: 

• were nationalised industries that were sold off - British Telecom (BT) was privatised and the initial offering where more than 50% of shares were opened for sale to the public. This set a new record for the largest share issue in the world.

Margaret Thatcher Case Study (4):

Examples of control:

• Thatcher was set on dismantling the elements of socialism that we still have ingrained in the British state as early as Clement's political system; she was successful in bringing about a more free-market capitalist political system. 

• She shared political and economic ideologies with President Reagan and found that both abhorred communism - which helped the UK to defeat communism.

• Her victory in the Falkland War was seen as a triumph for the ‘Iron Lady’  and with the economy recovering, she was able to win the election the following year. 

• After a year of the miners on strike, they all returned to work which reinforced her image as the ‘Iron Lady’ 

• Relations became strained around the time of the 1981 budget leading to a reshuffle in which Thatcher brought in more of her natural supporters, such as Nigel Lawson, Norman Tebbit and Cecil Parkinson, dismissing or marginalising some of the wets.

• 3 consecutive parliamentary majorities 

Margaret Thatcher Case Study (5):

Examples of lack of control:

Resignations:

• 1990: Geoffrey Howe whose resignation as deputy PM is often seen as the moment which brought the end of Thatcher's premiership.

• 1986: during the Westland crisis, Michael Heseltine resigned as her defence secretary  on the grounds that his opinion was no longer being listened to.

• 1989: her chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Lawson, resigned because he complained she was listening to her special economic advisor, Alan Walters, more than to him. This high profile resignation significantly undermined her authority

Policy:

• The politicians in her first cabinet were combative and often had serious arguments over gov policy and even the govs central ideology. Secretaries of state wanted to protect their departmental budgets from Thatcher's desire for spending cuts. 

• First years unemployment grew to over 3 million Thatcher asked if anyone did not support the government's economic policy which was followed by embarrassed silence. 

• By 1990, she had a few allies left in the cabinet. Chancellor John Major, exploited her weakness to persuade her to agree entry into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)- a policy she had long opposed. 

• 1984, Grand Hotel in Brighton (where conservative party meeting was held) the IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombed this Hotel causing 5 deaths and weakened her image as the ‘Iron Lady’

End of Thatcher:

• When Heseltine won the support of enough conservative mps to take his cabinet leadership challenge to a second round, Thatcher needed the support of the cabinet to survive. Having been taken for granted for so long, one by one that cabinet told her to resign because she would lose. The unpopularity of the poll tax and rising inflation led to a dramatic decline in her popularity, reducing the loyalty of the conservative party, who feared defeat at the next general election

• By ignoring the concerns of ministers and bypassing the cabinet, she failed to recognise her dependence on her cabinet and alienated colleagues whose support she needed. 

• In the second ballot against Michael Heseltine, her cabinet were advising her to resign as her little chance of winning the next elections were slim so she should resign with honour. 22 November 1990: resignation 

Tony Blair Case Study (1):

Dates: 1997-2007. Majority: 88 in 1997, 82 in 2001, 31 in 2005

Background: In the 1997 election, Labour achieved a majority of 179 seats, allowing him a large berth to effect change. His commitment to a centrist third way provided his government with strong philosophical foundations. More than any post-war PM, Blair had a strong rapport with the British people, which reached beyond traditional party loyalties (even though there was much party unity in this period); this sort of personal mandate further persuaded him that cabinet was insignificant to policy development.

Tony Blair Case Study (2):

Style of Leadership:

• He had a highly personalised leadership style and ideology. He was able to control the agenda and was viewed as a more dominant PM than Thatcher. His style was one of pragmatism. His ‘New Labour’ provided policies between the left and right. He ignored his cabinet frequently, he had a circle of advisors - one of them being Gordon Brown, who became prime minister. 

• Blair’s leadership style was highly presidential and his government was referred to as a ‘command prime-ministership’, in which the cabinet was marginalised to the point of only being told about decisions made in the Private Office. This was called the ‘sofa government’, in which Blair made decisions in bilateral meetings with ministers and key advisers like Jonathan Powell (chief of staff) and Alastair Campbell (press secretary).

• Blair’s preference for ‘sofa government’ meant there was little by way of informed collective discussion and decision making. Blair also disregarded security warnings, and criticism that the legal basis for going to war had not been fully evaluated. There was also apparently lackluster discussion on other policy options, such as working with other European neighbours or through the UN. 

• Blair did not have much time for a cabinet government, and spent more time talking to individual people and other ministers separately. This ‘sofa government’ method was the result of Blair trying to do more from Downing Street rather than with others.

• Blair was as charismatic as Thatcher, however unlike Thatcher he was part of a collective leadership. 

• The key policies adopted by the labour government in 1997 were delegated to his leading cohort. Blair himself concentrated largely on foreign policy and he left Economics to Brown, Domestic and social policy to Jack Straw, David Blunkett , Harriet Harmon and Frank Dobson. After 6 or 7 years, however, Blair's leadership became more singular and his popularity in the party waned. It was widely felt that he had over-reached his authority. 

Tony Blair Case Study (3):

Key events:

• Blair’s first years in power was a long honeymoon period,  marked by an effective response to his opposition leader William Hague and to the death of Diana and his popularity was high and with a strong majority he was able to keep the cabinet at an arm's length. 

• Despite being an almost presidential figure, his relationship with Chancellor Gordon Brown was tarnished with lies. Brown believed that in 1994 he and Blair had created a pact after the death of the Labour leader (John Smith), that said Blair would serve one term and then step down to allow Brown to fill the position. Blair made it clear that he had no plan to do this once he took power and denied the pact ever existed, which angered Brown. In response, he withheld information about the budget and denied funding for any projects spearheaded by Blair. The deputy PM John Prescott was often called to intervene and as the “Brownites” got more powerful Blair eventually accepted that he must step down and allow Gordon Brown to fill the position.

• His involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process has led to peace in Northern Ireland ever since. Blair’s intervention in Sierra Leone and Kosovo (many Kosovian boys were named Tonibler or Toni after him) gave him the confidence to believe that he could stand up to tyrannical dictators. 

• In 2003, Blair chose to join George W Bush’s US forces in intervention in Iraq - this wasn’t unpopular at first, but then it was discovered that Blair intervened to destroy the threat of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction which was based on false intelligence. The UK was almost alone among EU and NATO states in joining the USA in the war. It would have been relatively easier for the UK to follow the example of France and Germany and stay on the sidelines. It is possible that Blair’s ‘sofa government’ style meant his other cabinet members struggled to comment on and object to the invasion. This event has tainted Blair’s time in office, and in hindsight often overshadows other policies and decisions he made.

Tony Blair Case Study (4):

Key policies:

Blair introduced the most extensive constitution reforms and policies of modern times, including:

• Reducing business taxes for economic growth

• Introduced many reforms to education (abolishing the student maintenance grant system and introducing an up front fixed fee over just over £1000 for all Uni students) and the NHS (such as promoting public/private partnerships)

• Introducing tax credits to reduce child poverty

• Pursuing closer links with Europe but resisting joining the Eurozone.

• The Good Friday Agreement which brought peace between the UK and N.Ireland (although it had been worked on for about a decade)

• The Human Rights Act 1998 protected citizens against the state

• The House of Lords Act which removed all but 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, creating a party balance in the chamber

• Devolution with an Assembly in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London with more proportional electoral systems

• Freedom of Information Act 2000, which allows anyone to request information from the government, so long as it is not classified

• The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 allowed for the eventual creation of the Supreme Court which checked the power of the Executive

• Sharp, sustained increases in expenditure on health and education 

• Increased welfare benefits for those genuinely unable to support themselves 

• Introducing a national minimum wage

• Granting independence to the Bank of England to establish more rational financial policies

• Using government financial surpluses to reduce government debt 

• An active foreign policy with major interventions in the Balkans War, the SIerra Leone civil war and Iraq 

Many of these policies were carried over from previous Labour leader John Smith, and even worked on with Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdow

Tony Blair Case Study (5):

Examples of control:

• Before his cabinet had met for the first time, Blair and Brown colluded and decided to give interest-raising powers to the Bank of England. When Robin Butler (chief secretary to the cabinet) asked if Blair wanted to take it to cabinet first, he responded,“They’ll agree”.

• Blair was personally in favour of building the Millennium Dome, despite it being opposed by his cabinet, and ultimately he ignored his colleagues and plans resumed.

• In 2016, a publication of the Chilcot Report showed how Blair failed to consult his cabinet about the advisability of the Iraq war, and that most members just accepted the decision fait accompli.

• Major amendments were made to the Constitution by Blair.

• Most economic policies were managed by Gordon Brown, and the two worked together without consulting the cabinet often. The two, even in their later years when they disagreed on much, could not work and maintain their position without the other.

Tony Blair Case Study (6):

Examples of lack of control:

• His decision to intervene in Iraq led to a loss of control of the party, and people. 

• Allegedly in an exchange for Brown not challenging for Labour leadership in 1994, Blair gave Brown full control of the economy. As a result, when Blair wanted to join the European single currency, Brown blocked it by demanding that his ’5 tests’ for leadership be fulfilled first.

• After the controversies of Iraq and the fallout of the 2005 election, Blair won only 35.2% of the popular vote. The cabinet increasingly looked to Brown to provide the government with a new dynamic, especially after David Cameron took over the Tories in 2005. After having lost control of his cabinet, Blair announced in 2006 that he would resign within a year, and Brown won the Labour leadership election unopposed.

Boris Johnson Case Study (1):

Dates: july 2019 - september 2022 

Style of leadership:

• Johnson's 2019 election campaign was far more effective than Mays in 2017 as it focused singularly on the message ‘ Get Brexit done’ which appealed to disaffected Leave supporters in traditionally Labour voting constituencies.  He managed to secure a majority of 80 and subsequently, the UK withdrew from the EU on Jan 31st 2020. 

• Took a more drastic approach to control key events during his time as PM

• His cabinet was largely made up of Eurosceptic MPs on the right wing of the Party.

Boris Johnson Case Study (2):

Background:

• Attended Eton College

• Ran for the London Mayoral election. 

• Won the 2008 London Mayoral election.

Key events:

• November 2021 - began losing control

• March 2020- Lockdown in the UK legally comes down to force 

• 30 November 2021 - Party Gate scandal came out

• 2022 - The outbreak of the Ukraine War

Boris Johnson Case Study (3):

Key policies:

• For Brexit: tried to make a policy to make them back the deal: my way or the highway 

• New asylum policy was announced the day after the PM had received a fine from the police for attending a lockdown-breaching party. The policy - in which refugees were to be deported to Rwanda - was significant enough to take some pressure off the PM.

Boris Johnson Case Study (4):

Examples of control:

• The somewhat forced resignation of Sajid Javid in February 2020. By capitalising on his large mandate Johnson sought to gain control over the treasury by merging his advisory unit with that of the Chancellors. The result of which led to a less established Rishi Sunak being chancellor, which would mean Johnson would be able to exert greater control over the direction of the Treasury. 

• In 2019, he dismissed 21 Pro-EU Conservative MPs from  his party and renegotiated a ‘harder’ Brexit deal

• On the 29th October the House of Commons finally agreed upon a early general election 

• During the outbreak of the Ukraine War, Johnson became a strong supporter of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Johnson was instrumental in encouraging European leaders to give Zelenskiy support. He was the first world leader to visit the war-torn Ukrainian capital Kyiv.

Boris Johnson Case Study (5):

Examples of lack of control:

• COVID: 

  • Johnson spent much of 2020 struggling to anticipate the direction that the crisis would take . 

  • The Gov were frequently accused of introducing the lockdown measures at the last minute.

  •  It caused severe disruption to the global economy and political developments around the world.

  •  Because they were unprepared, the government had to take a number of drastic measures in order to ensure the health service would be able to cope with the influx of patients. This included bans on social gatherings, the construction of emergency hospitals and substantial financial support for those who were let go.

Scandals:

• Lockdown parties: 2022 media allegations of illegal lockdown parties at Downing Street were undermining his authority 

• Attempt to discredit Kier Starmer: A less successful attempt to control the agenda came in the wake of the publication of a damaging report on the downing street parties, johnsons attempted to associate the leader of the oppositions, Keir Starmer, with disgraced children’s entertainer jimmy savile. The backlash forced the PM into an apology and merely added questions of his leadership abilities. 

• Protecting an Ally: Johnson lost a considerable amount of control over events from Nov 2021 onwards, the PM attempted to change parliamentary rules to prevent an ally Owen Paterson - from being suspended from the HOC for improper lobbying. The scandal led to huge backlash and the government was forced to u-turn on its position, angering Tory MPs. 

• Statements: Frequently made major policy announcements or controversial statements that were widely seen as an attempt to move the news agenda from damaging stories.

• 41% of Conservative MPs voted  against the prime minister in a vote of no confidence  (6 June 2022)

• Johnson failed to win parliamentary approvals 3 times for an early general election under the fixed terms Parliament Act 2011 

• 24 September 2019, the Supreme Court declared that Johnsons prorogation had been illegal and he must recall it 

• On 5 September 2022, Johnson was succeeded by Liz Truss as PM

Commonly identified features:

• The size of parliamentary majority is critical 

  • Blair and Thatcher both benefited from large majorities for much of their terms of office

  • A large majority helps the PM in two ways: 

1. Gives them strong democratic legitimacy

2. Makes it easier to secure the passage of legislation

• Events are crucial, however favourable or unfavourable - PMs can be made or broken by events outside of their controls

• Prime Ministers need to head a united party if they are to be truly dominant 

  • David Cameron → limited by splits in his party

• Prime Ministers who seek to stretch their power too much will be reigned in 

  • Can be seen in both Thatcher and Blair

• PMs enjoy considerable authority and have great political and constitutional power but if they try to overstep powerful forces will act against them to prevent them from becoming too dominant

• Sometimes described as ‘elastic theory’

  • The further a PM stretches their power the stronger the forces that will restrain them