Evaluate the view that Prime Ministers today have too much power

Paragraph 1 - Point

A weaker argument is that Cabinet retains a meaningful on PM power - patronage cannot eliminate collective ministerial authority

Paragraph 1 - Evidence 1

Johnson resigned in 2022 after 50 of his cabinet ministers quit due to partygate

Paragraph 1 - Evidence 2

Thatcher was removed in 1990 despite her being PM for 11 years - Cabinet pressure after Geoffrey Howe’s resignation speech forced her to go

Paragraph 1 - Counter Point

A stronger argument is that PMs have made Cabinet far less relevant by taking key decisions outside of it

Paragraph 1 - Counter Evidence 1

Blair decided to invade Iraq 2003 through his sofa government - 139 Labour MPs rebelled, showing how little Cabinet was involved

Paragraph 1 - Count Evidence 2

Sunak appointed Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor on his 1st day as PM in 2022, using patronage to secure personal loyalty

Paragraph 1 - Evaluation

Cabinet can remove a PM but only when things have gone very wrong - PM has real power due to patronage powers and bypassing cabinet

Paragraph 2 - Point

A weaker argument is that prerogative powers have limits - if a PM uses them badly there are political consequences

Paragraph 2 - Evidence 1

Blair used prerogative to invade Iraq in 2003 - led to a 139 MP rebellion and permanently damaged his reputation

Paragraph 2 - Evidence 2

Sunak’s Rwanda policy had to go through multiple rewrites before Parliament passed it - even a PM with a majority faces resistance when pushing controversial policy

Paragraph 2 - Counter Point

A stronger argument is that prerogative powers let PMs make huge decisions without needing Parliament’s approval

Paragraph 2 - Counter Evidence 1

Johnson used COBRA during Covid to impose national lockdowns affecting 67m people - decided by a small Cabinet commitee w no parliamentary debate

Paragraph 2 - Counter Point 2

Sunak authorised air strikes on Yemen in 2024 without parliamentary debate - a major act of military force taken by the PM alone

Paragraph 2 - Evaluation

Iraq shows prerogative can backfire when it alienated public - Covid and Yemen show PMs making significant decisions possible due to prerogative, giving the PM power

Paragraph 3 - Point

A weaker argument is that PM power completely relies on having a big majority'/united party

Paragraph 3 - Evidence 1

Cameron’s coalition meant constantly negotiating with the Lib Dems who held 57 seats → forced Cameron into compromises

Paragraph 3 - Evidence 2

John Major had a 21-seat majority but Eurosceptic rebellions from 1992-97 made governing impossible

Paragraph 3 - Counter Point

A stronger argument is that when PM’s do have a big majority, they become presidential - dominating Parliament, Cabinet and Party

Paragraph 3 - Counter Evidence 1

Johnson’s 80 seat-majority let him pass the Withdrawal Agreement and deliver Brexit

Paragraph 3 - Counter Evidence 2

Blair’s 179-seat majority let him push through devolution and HRA and Lords reform with no opposition

Paragraph 3 - Evaluation

Majority size matters - since 1997 large majorities and centralised leadership are more common → conditions which make PM too powerful are now the norm