Can PMs dominate the Cabinet?

Cabinet ministers retain influence, especially when they represent powerful factions or when the PM is politically vulnerable. EXAMPLE?

Rishi Sunak’s 2023–2024 government, he had to appoint rivals like Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch to key Cabinet positions to appease the right wing of the Conservative Party.

Sunak, leading a fractured party with no direct mandate, often had to balance internal factions rather than impose top-down control.

Braverman, in particular, frequently challenged government policy publicly before being dismissed—exposing limits to Sunak’s authority.

How was Theresa May’s premiership an example of having to direct a Cabinet as a politically vulnerable PM?

Theresa May’s Cabinet was a constant balancing act between Leave and Remain factions.

To keep the party together, she appointed key Brexiteers (like Boris Johnson and David Davis) while also including Remainers like Philip Hammond.

This constrained her from enforcing a clear Brexit strategy, leading to frequent resignations and parliamentary defeats.

How can cabinet ministers constrain or challenge the PM?

Cabinet ministers with strong support bases or media clout can challenge or constrain PMs.

If the party is divided or the PM is weak, they act almost independently.

This forces the PM to negotiate rather than dominate, showing that Cabinet can still be a real power base.

Even in fragile positions, PMs can reassert dominance. How did this happen in 2023?

After sacking Braverman in 2023, Sunak reshuffled the Cabinet, bringing in David Cameron as Foreign Secretary.

This bold move re-centred power in No. 10, sidelining the party’s hard right and signalling a more presidential style. It proved that a PM can regain control when decisive and strategic.

Factionalism limits PM dominance - but the extent depends on…?

… how decisively the PM acts. If they hesitate, Cabinet gains power. If they’re bold, they regain control.

While factional power limits PM dominance, a clever or assertive leader can still take back control.

Cabinet influence rises when the PM is politically weak - but that weakness isn’t always permanent.

The PM can still dominate through control of the Cabinet agenda. Give an example.

Under Tony Blair, especially post-1997 landslide, Cabinet meetings were often short and marginalised, either decisions increasingly made in informal settings like “sofa government.”

Blair dominated key policy decisions (e.g. intervention in Iraq, constitutional reform) with much of the Cabinet finding out decisions after the fact.

He also relied heavily on close advisers like Alastair Campbell, who were unelected but extremely influential.

By controlling the flow of information and narrowing consultation, the PM effectively …?

The PM effectively sidelines dissent and centralises policy-making. Control over the Cabinet office, committees, and No.10 policy units gives them institutional tools to drive the agenda.

How did Blair’s Cabinet dominance weaken and what does this show?

• Weakened when Cabinet members like Clare Short and Robin Cook resigned in protest to Blair’s Iraq decisions.

• The war’s fallout showed that ignoring Cabinet can backfire, especially when major decisions lack collective support.

• Dissent grew, and Blair eventually resigned under pressure within his own party and Cabinet.

PMs can dominate the Cabinet during times of crisis when swift leadership is required. Give an EXAMPLE.

During COVID-19, BoJo made huge decisions - national lockdowns, furlough schemes, vaccine rollout - with limited formal Cabinet debate.

Much of the pandemic response was coordinated by the COVID-19 committee and scientific advisers like Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, not the full Cabinet.

Power was CENTRALISED in No.10, with ministers briefed rather than consulted.

In emergencies, the need for rapid decision-making gives PMs a reason to cut through normal Cabinet processes. This boosts their ability to…?

This boosts a PM’s ability to dominate government direction - Cabinet becomes reactive rather than deliberative.

Even in crises, PMs can face internal resistance. Give an example.

Johnson clashed with Rishi Sunak, the then Chancellor, over lockdowns and economic policy - Sunak was openly sceptical of long-term restrictions.

This tensions made decision-making MESSY and highlighted the limits of PM dominance, even under emergency conditions.

PMs can dominate the Cabinet through patronage and centralisation of power, ESPECIALLY with a strong mandate. Give an EXAMPLE.

BORIS J: After winning an 80-seat majority, he reshuffled the Cabinet to reward loyalty and removed dissenters (e.g., Sajid Javid resigned after refusing to fire his advisers at Johnson’s demand).

Johnson's dominance over Cabinet was clear—he surrounded himself with Brexiteer loyalists like Priti Patel and Dominic Raab, sidelining opposition and consolidating control over key policies like Brexit and COVID responses.

With a majority and strong public mandate, the PM can…?

Shape the Cabinet in their image, centralise decision-making in No.10, and reduce Cabinet to a rubber stamp.

HOWEVER, dominance over Cabinet depends on circumstances. When PMs are weak, Cabinet ministers can resist. EXAMPLE?

Liz Truss in 2022 struggled to control her Cabinet despite trying to push radical economic policy.

After sacking Kwasi Kwarteng, her Chancellor, and facing backlash from ministers like Michael Gove, her lack of Cabinet support forced her resignation. A strong mandate is essential—without it, dominance collapses.

PMs can dominate - but only when _______ , _____ and _____ are on their side.

PMs can only dominate when POLITICAL CAPITAL, LOYALTY and ELECTORAL STRENGTH are on their side.