the pm & the cabinet

  • PM Power

    • position n title = authority

    • control patronage

    • chairs cabinet n therefore agenda

    • has prerogative powers

  • cabinet power

    • determined majority of cabinet may overrule pm

    • cabinet can remove a pm

    • individual ministers may have powerbase

    • small common majority gives cabinet more say

3 ways to select cabinet ministers:

  1. pack cabinet w/ allies

  2. pick balanced cabinet that reps wings of party

  3. pick cabinet of the best possible ppl

party unity:

  • theresa may appointed remainers n brexiteers to her bcabinet

    • this is one form of unity, trying to keep competing wings of party @table

    • however, she struggled to maintain authority over it

  • johnson went for a different unity, picking hard brexiteers, no talent

experience:

  • pm may decide to include experienced politicians into the cabinet, ‘big beasts’

    • cameron included former leaders in his cabinet

    • johnson included other leadership rivals like raab

  • big name maybe = trouble

    • johnson removed hammond, considered too big n independent

ability:

  • pm should keep an eye on junior ministers w/ an eye to promoting them if senior position arises

  • rishi sunak made chancellor after doing well as chief sec to the treasury

  • pm should also demote those out of their depth

    • eg gavin williamson was reshuffled out of education, dominic raab from foreign office post-afghanistan

allies:

  • many PMs put their allies into cabinet eg gordon brown made peter mandleson a peer so he could attend cabinet

  • cameron appointed strong ally george osborne as chancellor

  • bojo appted uncritical allies eg nadine dorries

  • truss put kwarteng in as chancellor (eek)

  • raab key sunak ally

external pressures:

  • a pm cannot ignore certain problems/scandals

    • media perception v important

    • amber rudd forced to resign, matt hancock

  • bojo tried to weather out the storms eg continued support for key allies eg priti patel

  • sunak has diff problem, contrasted himself to boris

    • means he can’t hold on to ministers like zahawi, potensh raab

coalition:

  • 2010 coalition req diff approach: dep leader clegg allowed to appoint 4 libdem members

  • cameron reluctant to remove libdem members n risk coalitoin, eg vince cable critical of murdoch, but stayed

diversity:

  • since 1997, cabinets have, on balance, become more diverse » more women n poc

  • key cabinet posts given to may, patel, kwarteng n others

a changing relationship: pre-2010:

  • up to 1960s, known as cabinet govt

    • pm less of a presidential figure

    • pm was ‘first among equals’

  • 1960s - 2010 = prime ministerial govt

    • pm more dom esp thatcher, blair

    • more presidential manner

    • cabinet to rubber stamp decisions

a changing relationship: 2010-19:

  • 2010 election:

    • hung parliament

    • led to con/libdem coalition

    • cameron picked 22 members, clegg 5

    • pair relied on ‘the Quad’ » cameron, clegg, osborne, alexander

    • coalition’s nature meant cabinet strengthened for the period, smoothed over differences between 2 halves

  • diff post-2015:

    • brexit dominated end of cameron era

    • may replaced him in 2016, was also subsumed esp post 2017-election

    • failure to manage cabinet = resignation

a changing relationship: 2019 onwards

  • initially bojo struggled w/ cabinet » then called gen elec to ‘get brexit done’

  • with dom cummings aid » cabinet stacked w/ pro-brexiteers

    • johnson more presidential in style w/ advisors

  • however:

    • various own goals undermined his authority

    • was unable to get rid of raab

    • leadership ambitions from truss n sunak

    • old guard turning on him

    • dubious relation to the truth = big problem

  • sunak initially in charge of cabinet

    • policies seen as too ‘left’

    • worries about no tax cut promises

    • truss back on scene = more problems

    • rivals:

      • both liz n bojo still very prominent

      • boris continues to visit ukraine like he’s pm

      • liz has begun saying she was right on the economy

factors affecting pm/cabinet power balance:

  • a large majority

  • attitudinal party cohesion

  • electoral mandate

  • first-time govt

  • prime ministerial coattails

  • lots of new MPs

  • low salience issues

  • fear of alternative

  • external factors

majority:

  • a large majority obviously increases pm power

  • can afford to dismiss troublesome ministers

  • unlikely to lose a vote

  • lots of mps would need to rebel, in order to push them out

  • thatcher n blair only suffered 4 defeats each in HofC votes in their respective decades, may suffered 33 in 3 years

  • even with bojo’s woes, 50+ letters were needed to trigger leadership contest

    • mass resignations needed before he finally got out

attitudinal cohesion:

  • if a party largely agrees on key issues, then pm will have an easier time of it

  • thatcher’s party united behind her for most of her terms, blair’s for 1st n 2nd

  • both major n may had to deal with anti-eu issues, undermining their authority

electoral mandate:

  • connected to majority

    • if a govt doesn’t have strong support for manifesto, problems will arise

  • 2010 coalition struggled » neither party could bring full manifesto to bear

  • diff between may’s mandate in 2017 (lost majority) vs johnson’s in 2019

  • argument that truss n sunak didn’t have mandate as they weren’t voted in as PM by public

  • salisbury convention

first-time govt:

  • can be good/bad

  • problems can be attributed to prev regime n new face often popular: blair most popular in 1st term

  • however:

    • mjajor, brown n may couldn’t distance themselves from issues from govts they’d been part of

  • often, the longer a pm is in power, the more unpopular they become

the appeal of the new:

  • blair was seen as a fresh-faced alternative to ‘stale’ tory party

  • by 2005, seen as 2005 old guard

prime ministerial coattails:

  • a PM who is popular esp in non-traditional areas 4 party = gain more mp support » willing to cling on coattails to stay in power

  • thatcher, blair n johnson won seats in areas their party normally doesn’t

  • however, reverse is true: when popularity wanes, seen as electoral liability, MPs will move against them

lots of new MPs:

  • new MPs usually more malleable n dependent

    • grateful to successful PM for their seat

  • however, some can quickly become independent n not like the set-up eg the rebellion of the Red Wall seats since 2019

low saliences of issues:

  • if the issues of the day are not too controversial, the PM will likely succeed

  • blair good example

    • 1997 manifesto popular w/ not much dissent

    • however, iraq v diff issue

  • europe finished off major n may

fear of the alternative:

  • can be seen in 2 ways:

    1. if there’s not a viable alternative to lead, PM will remain

      • major in 1995, called own contest to restore authority

      • currently no real rival to sunak

    2. opposition also issue

      • PM can use strong opposition to remind their MPs they could lose, usually leading to support

      • weak opposition can be beneficial too » no viable alternative

for the marrow not the few:

  • opposition leader’s views on certain policies can hamper/harm the PM

    • corbyn’s campaigning dented May in 2017 but his ambivalence to brexit n perceived socialism = johnson finishing him

  • starmer v diff prospect

external factors:

  • devolution

    • has had unexpected results

    • led to calls for independence n erosion of support from regions

  • brexit

    • return of powers potensh strength for PM, but what if economy continues to tank?

  • old alliances vs new? global britain n trade deals? nato vs aukus?

  • falklands, credit crunch, recession, covid, ukraine?