PM and executive

How important is cabinet?

1) making policy

2) collective ministerial responsibility

3) reasons of appointing ministers

1) Yes- making major policy

/authorizing

The Cabinet remains an important institution within the UK government because it serves as the central decision-making body responsible for approving major policies and ensuring collective responsibility (AO1). According to constitutional convention, all significant government policies must receive Cabinet approval before they can proceed, reinforcing the principle of collective decision-making and accountability to Parliament. In practice, however, much of the real policy development and strategic discussion occurs outside formal Cabinet meetings, often within smaller committees or among the Prime Minister’s advisers, reflecting a more centralised and informal style of governance. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, while detailed policy planning was conducted by the Prime Minister and scientific advisers (SAGE), the Cabinet formally approved the national lockdown measures, legitimising them as official government policy (AO2). This demonstrates that although the Cabinet’s deliberative role has declined over time—largely due to the growth of prime-ministerial dominance—its formal authority remains crucial for transforming proposals into binding government actions. Therefore, while the Cabinet may no longer be the primary source of policy innovation, it continues to provide constitutional legitimacy and collective accountability for executive decisions, ensuring that government actions maintain a degree of transparency and shared responsibility (AO3).

1) No- Government can manipulate the cabinet (with private meetings)

The Prime Minister’s ability to manipulate the Cabinet through bilateral meetings demonstrates how executive power in the UK has become increasingly centralised, reducing the Cabinet’s traditional role as a collective decision-making body (AO1). Bilateral meetings—private discussions between the Prime Minister and individual ministers—allow the PM to shape, influence, or even decide policy before it is presented to the full Cabinet, thereby limiting open debate and challenge. This practice reflects the growth of prime-ministerial government, where authority is concentrated around the PM rather than shared collectively. For example, Tony Blair frequently relied on bilateral discussions with key figures such as Chancellor Gordon Brown, particularly over major economic and fiscal policies, effectively marginalising other Cabinet members. Blair was also criticised for sidelining the Cabinet during the 2003 Iraq War, when key decisions were made within a small inner circle rather than through full Cabinet consultation. Similarly, David Cameron preferred an informal, centralised style of leadership but, due to the constraints of the 2010–2015 coalition government, was compelled to use formal Cabinet structures more regularly to maintain cross-party agreement with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (AO2). These examples highlight how the Prime Minister can adjust Cabinet procedures to suit their political context and strengthen personal control over government policy. Consequently, while the Cabinet remains constitutionally significant, in practice its collective influence has been weakened by the rise of personalised, centralised decision-making, illustrating a shift from traditional Cabinet government toward a model of prime-ministerial or even presidential leadership (AO3).

2) Yes- They are strong when govt is weak

Cabinet ministers can hold significant individual power, and their influence helps maintain the Cabinet’s continuing importance as a check on the Prime Minister’s authority (AO1). Within the UK’s system of collective government, the Cabinet is designed to operate through shared decision-making, yet some ministers—often referred to as “Big Beasts”—possess such political stature, expertise, or party support that they can act as effective counterbalances to the Prime Minister. These powerful figures often control key government departments or enjoy strong backing within the governing party, making them difficult to marginalise or dismiss. For example, Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Tony Blair, exercised enormous influence over economic policy, including decisions on taxation, public spending, and granting the Bank of England independence. His power was so extensive that Blair reportedly felt unable to reshuffle or remove him, revealing the practical limits of prime ministerial dominance. Similarly, Boris Johnson’s resignation as Foreign Secretary in 2018 over Theresa May’s Brexit strategy significantly undermined her authority and deepened internal party divisions (AO2). These examples illustrate how senior ministers can shape, challenge, or even destabilise the leadership of the Prime Minister, ensuring that executive power is not entirely centralised. Therefore, while modern Prime Ministers often dominate policy-making, the presence of influential Cabinet figures continues to provide an important check on personal authority and reinforces the collective character and political balance of the Cabinet system (AO3).

2) No - Government are strong due to the doctrine of collective ministerial.

The Prime Minister’s control over Cabinet structure and procedure gives them a dominant position at the heart of the UK executive, reinforcing the shift toward prime-ministerial government (AO1). As head of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister decides the agenda, timing, and frequency of meetings, and chairs discussions—allowing them to steer debate, manage disagreement, and summarise conclusions in a way that reflects their own policy preferences. This control enables the PM to shape the direction of government and limit collective challenge. For instance, Margaret Thatcher was well known for her authoritarian chairing style, tightly managing Cabinet meetings to push through her preferred economic and foreign policies while marginalising dissenting ministers. Moreover, the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility reinforces this dominance, as ministers are expected to publicly support all government decisions or resign if they cannot. This was clearly demonstrated in 2018, when both David Davis (Brexit Secretary) and Boris Johnson (Foreign Secretary) resigned from Theresa May’s Cabinet over disagreements with her Brexit plan, highlighting the pressure ministers face to maintain unity even when they oppose policy decisions (AO2). These examples show that while the Cabinet theoretically represents collective decision-making, in practice the Prime Minister’s procedural control and authority over ministerial loyalty allow them to dominate both discussion and outcomes. Therefore, although formal checks still exist within the Cabinet system, the concentration of agenda-setting and disciplinary powers in the hands of the Prime Minister has tilted the balance of power decisively toward individual leadership, reducing the collective nature of executive decision-making (AO3).

3) Yes- govt appointment of cabinet

The Prime Minister’s power to appoint, dismiss, and reshuffle Cabinet ministers is one of their most significant tools of authority, but it must be exercised with caution to avoid internal conflict and maintain political stability (AO1). This power allows the Prime Minister to reward loyalty, promote talent, and shape the ideological balance of the government, reinforcing their control over both policy direction and party discipline. However, the effectiveness of this power depends heavily on political context and personal relationships within the governing party. A poorly handled reshuffle can provoke resentment among senior ministers, destabilise the Cabinet, and weaken the Prime Minister’s authority. For example, Theresa May’s 2018 reshuffle was widely regarded as a failure when Jeremy Hunt, then Health Secretary, refused to accept her offer to move to the Foreign Office, forcing May to back down and leaving her unable to fully assert control over her Cabinet. This public display of resistance exposed divisions within her government and damaged her image of authority (AO2). Such cases show that, while appointment powers are a crucial aspect of prime-ministerial control, they can also become a political liability if mismanaged. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s ability to maintain unity and authority depends not only on the formal powers of office but also on their political skill, judgement, and ability to manage powerful colleagues, demonstrating that leadership in the UK executive relies as much on political authority as on constitutional power (AO3).

3) No- appointment is strategic from the govt

The Prime Minister’s extensive powers of appointment give them a central role in shaping the Cabinet and consolidating political authority within government (AO1). As head of the executive, the Prime Minister has the formal right to appoint, promote, demote, and dismiss Cabinet ministers, allowing them to reward loyalty, manage rival factions, and construct a team that aligns with their policy priorities and ideological stance. These appointment powers serve not only to ensure effective governance but also to reinforce discipline and loyalty, as ministers are often aware that their political careers depend on the Prime Minister’s approval. For example, when Theresa May became Prime Minister in 2016, she appointed trusted allies such as Amber Rudd as Home Secretary, while also including figures like Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary to balance different factions within the Conservative Party and project unity after the Brexit referendum. However, this strategy ultimately failed when Johnson resigned in 2018 in protest over May’s Brexit policy, exposing the limitations of using appointments to manage ideological divisions and maintain control (AO2). This case highlights that, while appointment powers can strengthen a Prime Minister’s position, they also carry political risks if not handled carefully. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s success depends on their ability to use appointments strategically—balancing loyalty, competence, and factional interests—to maintain both Cabinet unity and effective leadership, demonstrating that political skill and authority are as vital as formal constitutional power (AO3).

are Prime Ministers still as powerful as they once were?

1) power of appointment

2) managing their cabinet

3) Leadership over party

1) Yes- Power over appointment

Prime Ministers continue to hold significant power by controlling the appointment and promotion of loyal supporters who share their ideological preferences. This allows them to keep rivals or critics out of government, ensuring that both ministers and the majority of backbenchers remain loyal and supportive. For example, in 1983, Margaret Thatcher consolidated her position by transforming her Cabinet, replacing “wets” (One Nation Conservatives) with “dries” (Thatcherites) who fully backed her policies. More recently, in 2020, Boris Johnson showed this power by sacking Chancellor Sajid Javid and appointing Rishi Sunak after Javid refused to dismiss his special advisers. In conclusion, the Prime Minister’s ability to hold control over appointments remains key to maintaining leadership authority and managing party unity.

1) No- power of appointment

The Prime Minister’s power to choose and remove ministers still has limits. When picking ministers, the PM has to think about including women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ people to make sure the government represents different groups. They also need to pick their best people to make sure the government works well. The PM must balance different political and ideological views to keep everyone happy and avoid fights within the party. For example, in 2020, Boris Johnson replaced Chancellor Sajid Javid with Rishi Sunak after Javid refused to dismiss his own advisers, showing that even powerful ministers can be removed if they don’t align with the PM’s wishes. Also, powerful party members, called ‘Big Beasts,’ are usually less of a problem when they have government jobs because they have to follow government rules. In conclusion, even though the Prime Minister has strong powers to choose ministers, they need to use this power carefully to keep the government stable and working properly.

2) Yes- managing their cabinet.

Prime Ministers have considerable scope for managing and controlling the Cabinet, which allows them to effectively determine its role in government. They chair Cabinet meetings, manage the agendas and discussions, and can steer conversations to prevent potential disagreements from escalating. Charismatic Prime Ministers sometimes bypass the Cabinet altogether to get the decisions they want. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, it was alleged that Boris Johnson relied heavily on a small group of trusted ministers—Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock, Rishi Sunak, and Michael Gove—known as the ‘quad’ to make urgent decisions, such as the implementation of lockdown measures and the allocation of emergency funding, often without wider Cabinet consultation. In conclusion, the Prime Minister’s control over Cabinet management gives them significant influence over government decision-making, sometimes reducing the Cabinet’s overall role.

2) No- managing the cabinet

The Prime Minister’s ability to manage and control the Cabinet does have its limits. Cabinet support depends heavily on the PM’s popularity and success; if these decline, support can quickly wane. Resignations from Cabinet ministers can seriously damage a Prime Minister’s political standing and undermine their authority. Additionally, some issues are so important that they must be included on the Cabinet agenda, and strong disagreements over these matters can lead to embarrassing resignations. For example, during the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government (2010–2015), Cabinet meetings were held more regularly—every Tuesday for up to two hours—to manage differing party views and maintain collective responsibility. In conclusion, while the Prime Minister has considerable control over the Cabinet, this power is limited by the need to maintain ministerial support and manage internal conflicts effectively.

3) Yes- leadership over party

Party leadership underpins all other aspects of Prime Ministerial power, setting the PM apart from other ministers and giving them authority across the entire government. A strong party majority in the House of Commons significantly increases the Prime Minister’s ability to pass legislation and assert control. The larger the majority, the greater the control the PM has over Parliament, especially through a disciplined party. For example, Tony Blair did not face a single Commons defeat between 1997 and 2005, largely because his three-figure majority allowed him to govern without major internal resistance. Similarly, after Boris Johnson won the 2019 general election with an 80-seat majority, Conservative MPs quickly backed his EU Withdrawal Agreement—legislation many of them had previously blocked under Theresa May. Party members understand that their own electoral fortunes are tied to the PM’s popularity, which discourages public criticism or party division. In conclusion, party leadership is a vital foundation of Prime Ministerial power, enabling effective control over government and Parliament when backed by strong internal unity.

3) No- leadership over party

However, the advantages that come from party leadership can be limited in several important ways. As party leader, the Prime Minister is expected to deliver electoral success and maintain public support. When the government becomes unpopular, party loyalty can quickly fade. For example, Boris Johnson’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020—particularly the perception of mismanagement and mixed messaging—led to a sharp decline in his personal approval ratings and increased tensions within the Conservative Party, weakening his grip on power despite his earlier majority. Additionally, PMs with only a small majority face constant pressure to keep their party united, as even minor rebellions from backbenchers can derail legislation. David Cameron experienced this in 2015 when his narrow majority forced him to carefully manage tensions between the Eurosceptic and pro-EU wings of his party, ultimately leading to the EU referendum. In conclusion, while party leadership is a key source of Prime Ministerial power, it is fragile and heavily dependent on popularity, unity, and electoral strength.

Are the conventions of ministerial responsibility still important?

1- unity for the public

2- personal accountability

3- protect the government

1) Yes - unity (look united in public)

The conventions of ministerial responsibility remain important as they are central to maintaining government unity within parliament and the public. Under this convention, ministers are expected to publicly support government policy or resign if they cannot do so. This reinforces a unified front and helps uphold the authority of the executive. For instance, in 2018, Boris Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary under Theresa May’s premiership after disagreeing with the Chequers Agreement on Brexit, claiming it betrayed the referendum result. Similarly, in 2019, Jo Johnson resigned from government for the second time, stating he could not support the removal of loyal Conservative MPs who opposed a no-deal Brexit. These resignations demonstrate that the convention continues to function as a mechanism for maintaining discipline and accountability. In conclusion, while occasionally tested, ministerial responsibility remains a crucial feature of the UK political system, ensuring both internal cohesion and democratic scrutiny.

1) No

Collective ministerial responsibility has come under increasing strain in recent years, particularly when ministers have publicly disagreed with government policy but chosen not to resign. This undermines the principle that the Cabinet should present a united front, and weakens the authority of the Prime Minister. Between 2018 and 2019, under Theresa May’s leadership, several senior ministers openly challenged her Brexit strategy but remained in post—most notably Andrea Leadsom and Liam Fox. Their continued presence in Cabinet despite clear disagreements eroded discipline and made May’s government appear divided and ineffective. This lack of unity severely undermined her leadership and contributed to her eventual resignation. In conclusion, while collective responsibility remains a key constitutional convention, it loses its effectiveness when not enforced, and prolonged disunity can destabilise the government.

2) Yes- personal and accountability

Individual ministerial responsibility is a vital element of good governance, as it ensures that ministers are held accountable for the actions and performance of their departments, as well as for maintaining high standards of personal conduct. This principle reinforces public trust by demanding that those in senior government roles demonstrate both competence and integrity. A more recent and salient example occurred on 5 September 2025, when Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner resigned after an ethics investigation found she had underpaid stamp duty by approximately £40,000 due to not seeking specialist tax advice. Rayner referred herself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, acknowledged the breach of conduct, and stepped down from all her posts—including Deputy Prime Minister, Housing Secretary, and Deputy Labour Leader—triggering a major cabinet reshuffle. In conclusion, individual ministerial responsibility remains a crucial convention for upholding ethical standards and accountability within government, particularly when ministers feel they can no longer support or defend the government’s actions.

2) No- political loyalty over political responsibility

Ministerial responsibility, while central to the UK’s constitutional framework, is ultimately a convention and not legally enforceable, meaning its application often depends on political circumstances rather than strict rules. As such, its enforcement can be inconsistent, undermining its role in ensuring ministerial accountability. Resignations frequently occur due to personal scandals rather than professional misconduct. For instance, in 2020, an investigation found that Home Secretary Priti Patel had breached the ministerial code by bullying civil servants. Despite this, Prime Minister Boris Johnson rejected the findings and refused to dismiss her, highlighting how political loyalty can override accountability. In conclusion, while ministerial responsibility is intended to uphold standards in public office, its inconsistent and politically selective application weakens its effectiveness as a tool for genuine accountability.

3) Yes - role of ministerial resignations in protecting the Prime Minister and government from wider political damage

Ministerial resignations can play a crucial role in shielding the Prime Minister and the wider government from sustained political fallout. When controversies arise, removing or pressuring a minister to resign can help contain criticism and demonstrate that the government is taking action. For example, in 2017, Priti Patel resigned as International Development Secretary following unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials, which risked undermining the government’s foreign policy. In 2018, Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary after misleading MPs over immigration targets, helping to distance then-Prime Minister Theresa May from the backlash during the Windrush scandal. In both cases, the resignations helped to absorb public anger and allowed the government to regain control of the political narrative. In conclusion, while not always a reflection of personal failure, ministerial resignations are often used as a strategic tool to protect the government’s stability and reputation.

3) No- failing to taking own responsibility

Although the principle of individual ministerial responsibility appears clear in theory, in practice, ministers often attempt to avoid accountability by shifting blame onto others. Rather than accepting personal responsibility for departmental failures, they may claim ignorance or distance themselves from the actions in question. For example, in 2020, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson deflected blame for the A-level results fiasco onto Ofqual, arguing it was the exam regulator’s fault rather than his own department’s. Similarly, Health Secretary Matt Hancock avoided resignation during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic by attributing mistakes to Public Health England. These cases highlight how ministers can use blame-shifting tactics to protect their political careers, with media pressure—rather than constitutional convention—often becoming the decisive factor in whether a resignation occurs. In conclusion, while individual ministerial responsibility remains an important constitutional principle, its impact is weakened when ministers can avoid consequences by redirecting blame.