(YES) “Evaluate the view that the cabinet has become increasingly subordinate (lower ranking) to the PM”.

Intro

The Cabinet is made up of the senior members of government. Every week during Parliament, members of the Cabinet meet to discuss the most important issues for the government

overall argument : disagreement

PARA 1

Point: Agree (Lib Dems & Cameron)

On one hand, cabinet has become increasingly subordinate to the PM, with the 2010 coalition demonstrating the lack of power cabinet ministers have.

Evidence: 

-In 2010, after the Conservatives only won 36.1% of the vote, they formed a coalition with the Lib Dems due to the hung Parliament. The Lib Dems, during the 2010 election, had pledged in their manifesto that they would not raise tuition fees. Despite this, in 2012, fees were raised from 3k to 9k.

Analysis:

-The reason the Lib Dems had to make concessions over tuition fees was because they needed to compromise over Cameron’s large austerity measures planned to deal with the effects of the financial crash (2008). The problem with the coalition was that cabinet was essentially made up of two conflicting ideologies. Although this would naturally cause the Lib Dems to compromise, the fact they compromised on their manifesto is significant in showing their subordination, as not even the Lords are allowed to oppose manifesto policies.

-This impacted the Lib Dems. After breaking their promises, a YouGov poll revealed 63% of people believed the Lib Dems had ‘broken their promises and betrayed their supporters’. This led to their vote share dropping by 15.2% in 2015.

-This shows how cabinet is subordinate to the PM, as even if large portions of the cabinet largely opposes policies, the PM can still push them through with little challenges.

CounterPoint:() Cabinet has their own departments)

However, cabinet ministers have their own departments with their own civil servants, and so can carry out policies in their own right, such as Gavin Williamsons education policies.

Evidence:

-Each cabinet minister has control over a specific area of policy. For example, Gavin Williamson was the Education Secretary from 2019-2021. In the field of education, he was independent in decision making, and constructed the policy that A-Level results during lockdown would be based off of schools’ previous results.

Analysis:

-The reason that the UK has cabinet ministers is because the PM can’t simply oversee every area of policy. It was vital that Gavin Williamson handled education during the pandemic as the Prime minister needed to focus on other domestic policies, such as devising policies to help regulate the economy.

-Gavin Williamsons control over education policy was significant however- with over 250,000 pupils sitting their A-Levels, Williamson was handed control over a policy area affecting a large portion of the youth. The importance of education shows that cabinet isn’t subordinate, as policy is in the hands of the cabinet, not the PM.

-Furthermore, the fact that Williamson was ultimately blamed for the disparities in results, with the opposition parties calling for his resignation, shows that the cabinet is not subordinate as they’re recognised as key in policy making.

PARA 2

Point:Agree (Thatcher, ‘dry’ cabinet)

On one hand, cabinet opposition has limited strength, as, due to ministers being chosen by the PM, cabinets can be created to simply serve the PMs interests, such as Thatcher’s.

Evidence:

-For example, although at first Thatcher devised a cabinet with viewpoints diverse from hers (the ‘wets’ and the ‘dries’), as time went by Thatcher removed the ‘wets’ from her cabinet (Sir Ian Gilmour, pragmatist) which didn’t take the same hard-line approach to trade unions and austerity that she did. This led to a cabinet devoid of opposition.

Analysis:

-This impacted her policies as it meant she was able to be dogmatic about her approach to trade unions. For example, at the start of her office (1979), her trade union policies were less harsh, with the 1980 Employment Act only outlawing ‘secondary action’ and deploying weak picketing laws. However, by 1982, with cabinet becoming increasing in Thatcher’s favour, we can see a shift towards a more radical approach to trade unions, with the 1982 Employment Act banning ‘political strikes’ and putting the financial damages of strikes on the burden of the workers (government could seize £250,000), massively reducing strike action.

-This was significant because Thatcher’s ‘iron fisted’ approach to the unions could not be significantly challenged by cabinet, let alone Parliament. All these moderate ‘wets’ were forced into backbench positions, bound by loyalty to the whip.

-This demonstrates that cabinet has become subordinate because a PM has the ability to construct a cabinet which enforces their own agenda.

CounterPoint:( Johnson, resignations)

However, in recent years, even loyal cabinets have been able to effectively oppose the PM, such as Johnsons cabinet whereby minister resignations led to him resigning.

Evidence:

-Despite scandals and public opposition to Johnson (e.g. calls for him resign after partygate in November 2021), he did not step down as Prime Minister until he lost the confidence of his cabinet. This started on the 5^th of July when Sunak resigned, followed by over 30 other MPs, causing Johnson to eventually resign on July 7^th as he could not keep a cabinet.  

Analysis:

-This impacted Johnsons ability to remain in government as it meant his cabinet wasn’t working. The UK cabinet is key for the Prime Minister as it helps to organise and enact policy, and so with Johnson’s ministers resigning upon appointment, it meant there was no way he could govern the country.

-This is significant in showing the strength of cabinet as they have the consistent opportunity to remove an unpopular PM. Whilst in theory Parliament has this power as they can issue a vote of no confidence, in practise this isn’t always effective (e.g. June 2022 Johnson wins the vote by 17.6%), especially since there needs to be a year until the next vote. What is effective however, is the resignation of cabinet ministers, as this can happen at any time (e.g. a month after the failed no confidence vote), which was impactful, as according to Johnson, he was pushed out by this “herd instinct”.

-Therefore, the cabinet has not become increasingly subordinate to the PM, as as a collective they have the opportunity to remove a PM, showing its importance

Para 3

Point:For( Blair, presidentialised image)

On one hand, British politics has become so presidentialsied that the cabinet has become subordinate, as elections and policies, e.g. Blair, now revolves around the party leader.

Evidence:

-When Blair was campaigning for election in 1997, his campaign revolved around him and his idea of ‘new Labour’. For example, Blairs ‘do it’ campaign emphasised that under Blair, ‘things can only get better’. However, the reason this was presidentialsed was because Blair maintained a distance from the original Labour party, scrapping Clause IV in 1995 and constructing his more moderate Labour.

Analysis:

-After Blair reconstructed the party, he won 43.2% of the vote and the biggest landslide since the 30s. This hugely impacted Labours policies, as they became centred around Blairs’ vision. For example, in scrapping clause IV, Blair embraced the notions of privatisation more, such as through funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs.

-This was significant as cabinet became almost obsolete under Blair. The legacy of the 1997-2007 Labour government is specifically attributed to Blair and his vision of new Labour, with the cabinet, apart from Gordon Brown, being given little credit for policy. Even John Chilcot spoke up about Blairs dominance, saying he had “personal and political dominance” over his cabinet when it came to decisions on Iraq.

-Therefore, this demonstrates that the cabinet has become subordinate, as PMs like Blair show that political campaigns, and party policies, revolve around the PM, not cabinet

CounterPoint(Against): Sunak, cabinet image.

However, in recent years, cabinet’s image has become more significant in influencing public opinion, with the Conservatives cabinet (2019-2023) causing the party’s loss of support, suggesting that presidentialised politics has declined.

Evidence:

-There’s been a harsh decline in Conservative support since the 2019 43.6% landslide. For example, with the May 2023 local elections, the Conservatives lost 1,060 seats. What’s even more shocking, is that according to opinion polls, if a snap election was called in April 2023, the Conservatives would be pushed to third party status with only 23% of the vote.

Analysis:

-Unlike how a change in leadership from May to Johnson boosted renewed the parties image, the recent change in leadership has not changed the parties image. This suggests that the imagine of the party no longer lays with just the Prime Minister, but the cabinet too. For example, the Conservative cabinet has hugely impacted their image, with scandals such as Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs and Gavin Williamson breaking ministerial code causing a loss of trust. This is reinforced by the fact that Sunak isn’t being called to resign like Johnson and Truss were, the entire party is being called to resign.

-Many voters, especially the apathic or uneducated, tend to vote based on parties ‘face-value’ appearance in the media, and so if cabinet keeps producing scandals, this diminishes the image of the whole party, including the PM.  

-Therefore, cabinet has not become increasingly subordinate as it has the power to massively influence the parties image