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 is still an important part of UK government because it must approve all major policies before they can officially go ahead. While most of the real decision-making often happens behind closed doors—among the Prime Minister’s advisers or in smaller groups—the Cabinet still has to sign off on these decisions to make them official. For example, in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cabinet approved the national lockdown plans after discussions led by the Prime Minister and scientific advisers. Even though the detailed planning happened elsewhere, the Cabinet’s approval was needed to make it government policy. In conclusion, although the Cabinet may not always create policy itself, it plays a key role in confirming and authorising decisions, making it an essential part of how the UK government works.

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

The Prime Minister can often manipulate the Cabinet by using bilateral meetings—private discussions held between the Prime Minister and individual Cabinet ministers. These meetings allow the PM to shape or even decide policy before it reaches the full Cabinet, limiting broader input or challenge. Tony Blair, for example, relied heavily on bilateral meetings with key allies like Chancellor Gordon Brown, particularly on major economic decisions, often leaving other Cabinet members out of the loop. Blair was criticised for sidelining the Cabinet during the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003, when key decisions were made with a small inner circle. David Cameron also preferred informal decision-making but, due to the nature of his coalition government with the Liberal Democrats (2010–2015), was forced to formalise Cabinet structures and maintain regular meetings to ensure cross-party agreement—especially with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. In conclusion, while the Cabinet is meant to be the central decision-making body, the increasing use of bilateral meetings and Prime Ministerial dominance has significantly reduced its collective influence.

2) Yes- They are strong when govt is weak

Cabinet ministers can be very powerful in their own right, which makes the Cabinet as a whole much more important than it may sometimes appear. These so-called “Big Beasts” often have strong power bases within the party and can act as a counterbalance to the authority of the Prime Minister. Their influence makes them difficult to sideline, and their public disagreements, resignations, or dismissals can significantly weaken the Prime Minister’s authority. For example, Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Tony Blair, had enormous influence over economic policy, including decisions on tax, spending, and Bank of England independence. His power was such that Blair was reportedly unable to reshuffle or remove him, despite tensions—highlighting the limits of Prime Ministerial control. Similarly, in 2018, Boris Johnson’s resignation as Foreign Secretary over Theresa May’s Brexit strategy weakened her leadership and intensified internal party divisions. In conclusion, while Prime Ministers are powerful, influential Cabinet ministers can act as a critical check, reinforcing the continuing importance of the Cabinet in UK politics.

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

Prime Ministers have significant control over the inner workings of the Cabinet, which strengthens their overall dominance within government. They effectively shape the Cabinet’s agenda by deciding what is discussed and have the authority to chair Cabinet meetings, giving them the power to guide debate and summarise conclusions in a way that reflects their own position. For example, Margaret Thatcher was known for tightly controlling Cabinet meetings, often steering discussions firmly toward her preferred policies and summarising debates to emphasise her conclusions. Additionally, the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility requires Cabinet members to publicly support all government decisions, even if they personally disagree. This was evident in 2018 when several ministers, including Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, resigned from Theresa May’s Cabinet over disagreements with her Brexit strategy, as they could not publicly support the policy. In conclusion, the Prime Minister’s control over Cabinet procedures and the expectation of unity under collective responsibility significantly enhance their ability to dominate the Cabinet and drive government policy.

3) Yes- govt appointment of cabinet

Prime Ministers need to be careful in how they use their appointment powers and reshuffles, as poor decisions can create disharmony within their party and government. A badly managed reshuffle can upset key ministers and damage party unity, weakening the Prime Minister’s authority. For example, Theresa May faced difficulties during her reshuffle when Jeremy Hunt, then Health Secretary, refused to accept her offer to move to the Foreign Office, which limited her ability to reshape the Cabinet as she wished. Such resistance can undermine the Prime Minister’s control and highlight the delicate balance required when managing powerful Cabinet members. In conclusion, effective use of appointment powers is crucial for maintaining party cohesion and ensuring the smooth functioning of government.

3) No- appointment is strategic from the govt

Prime Ministers have significant powers of appointment, as they are responsible for appointing, promoting, demoting, and sacking all members of the Cabinet. This authority allows the PM to select ministers who are loyal or share their ideological views, helping to shape a cohesive and supportive team. These appointment powers also serve as a tool to encourage loyalty, as Cabinet members often know that their political careers depend on the Prime Minister’s favour. For example, when Theresa May became Prime Minister in 2016, she appointed key allies such as Amber Rudd as Home Secretary and Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary. She appointed Johnson specifically to try to unite the different wings of the Conservative Party, but this strategy ultimately failed when he resigned in 2018 in protest over her Brexit approach. In conclusion, the Prime Minister’s control over appointments is a powerful way to consolidate authority and ensure a government aligned with their agenda, making the Cabinet a crucial arena for balancing party unity and effective leadership.

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) 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 notable example occurred in July 2022, when Chancellor Rishi Sunak resigned from Boris Johnson’s government, stating that their approaches to economic policy were “fundamentally too different” and that the public expected government to be conducted “properly, competently and seriously.” His resignation, alongside that of Health Secretary Sajid Javid, triggered a wave of ministerial departures and ultimately contributed to Johnson’s resignation as Prime Minister. 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.