THE GOVERNMENT

The government consists of all ministers with executive responsibility:

> the Prime Minister is the head of government

> the Cabinet consists of those senior ministers who meet regularly to determine and co-ordinate government policy

> junior ministers are those not in the Cabinet who do not have responsibility for a department of state - they include Ministers of State (2nd ranking) and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries (3rd ranking).

The size of the government is now about 100, which is a significant proportion of the total number of MPs - and an even bigger proportion of the MPs of the majority party. This creates difficulty in recruitment of suitable candidates and is one of the reasons for the inclusion of members of the House of Lords in the government.

All ministers must be either MPs or peers - in order that they can be directly accountable to Parliament, through Question Time, etc. This contrasts with, for example, the United States, where neither the President nor ministers are members of Congress, as part of the separation of powers.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ministers, both Cabinet and non-Cabinet, have a number of different functions:

> an organisational role, having the political responsibility for the management of the department or section

> a policy role, including the initiation of policy and/or the selection of policy options

> a presentational role, putting the department's case to Parliament, to the media and to the public at large.

Additionally, Cabinet ministers have responsibility for the policy of the government as a whole, for co-ordination and for the resolution of departmental conflicts.


Collective responsibility

The principle of collective responsibility is based on the responsibility of the government and the Cabinet to Parliament for all of their actions. The government as a whole can be held to account for their policies, in a vote of confidence. If they lose the confidence of Parliament, then they must resign.

Every decision of the government is therefore regarded as the responsibility of all its members. In this way, ministers are able to rely on the support of all of their colleagues in defending a particular policy. This is so whether or not they agree with the decision, whether or not they took part in making the decision - or even whether or not they were aware it was being made:

> a minister who disagrees with any aspect of policy is expected to keep silent or resign (e.g. Robin Cook, 2003)

> a minister who speaks out publicly against government policy can expect to be sacked.

In practice, many ministers stay in office even when they disagree with major elements of policy - either for personal advancement or in the hope of being able to change policy in the future.

Collective responsibility is a constitutional convention: it is not based on any statutory authority. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted and applied. It has, however, been suspended on occasion - for example, during the European Community referendum campaign in 1975.


Weakening of collective responsibility?

It has been suggested that in recent years, collective responsibility has been weakened:

> ministers sometimes make speeches “in code” indicating a general dissent, though not any specific disagreement (a sacking matter)

> the use of Press “leaks” and non-attributable briefings can make it clear that differences exist

> a minister’s “friends” can let it be known that the minister disagrees with this or that aspect of policy

> the publication of ex-Cabinet ministers’ diaries (Crossman, Castle, Benn, Lawson, Howe, Thatcher, etc) has revealed the many divisions, conflicts and rivalries within Cabinets - albeit retrospectively.

The virtually open conflict between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is a clear example of how collective responsibility has weakened, though they do maintain the veneer of unity.


Individual ministerial responsibility

Each minister is responsible to Parliament for his/her own conduct and for the actions of his/her department.

It is the minister who takes the praise or blame for policies and civil servants are meant to be impartial and anonymous. And while ministers’ private lives are generally held to be their own affairs, if any of their actions, either personal or political, are such as to cause them to lose the confidence of Parliament, then they are expected to resign.

A strict interpretation of the principle of responsibility requires a minister to resign for a failure by the department even if there was no personal liability.

Examples of resignations on the basis of individual responsibility include:

> in 1982 Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary after the Foreign Office failed to anticipate or prevent the invasions of the Falklands by the Argentines

> in 1998 Peter Mandelson resigned following disclosure of a loan from another minister which had not been declared on the Register of Members’ Interests

> in 2004, David Blunkett resigned over allegations surrounding his relationship with a married woman.


Weakening of individual responsibility

Despite these examples of resignations, it is increasingly the case that ministers refuse to resign if they believ that they can be sustained by the support of the Prime Minister and their party majority in Parliament.

As with collective responsibility, Tony Blair made it clear, when New Labour came into office, that he expected the “highest standards” from ministers and that, if necessary, he would expect ministers to resign quickly, avoiding the long-drawn out resignation dramas of the previous government.

THE CABINET

The Cabinet usually consists of 21 or 22 senior ministers, the majority of whom head the major departments of state (the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Treasury, etc), though a number may have no departmental responsibility (for example, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster).

Functions of the Cabinet

The Cabinet is the body which takes the most important political decisions:

> the determination of policy to be put before Parliament, as well as the day-to-day business of Parliament itself

> the control of the executive (i.e. the civil service and the departments of state)

> the co-ordination of the different departments of state and the resolution of disputes between departments

> it provides political leadership for the governing party, in Parliament and in the country.


Composition of the Cabinet

The members of the Cabinet and junior ministers are all appointed personally by the Prime Minister. The factors which a PM needs to consider when making such appointments include:

> the political power of the potential minister: some individuals are so strong that they cannot be ignored

> the personal qualities of the individual: competence, debating skills, presentational skills, etc

> the need to create a balance - between different wings of the party, different genders, different regional interests, etc

> whether a potential rebel will be more trouble inside or outside of government.

CABINET COMMITTEES & BI-LATERALS

The Cabinet itself meets weekly for one or two hours. Because of the constraints of time, it often functions as a clearing house, confirming proposals and ideas developed elsewhere, rather than discussing each issue in depth in the Cabinet itself. Much of the work of preparing policy papers, etc is devolved to Cabinet committees.

The importance of these committees is that some have argued that the process of Cabinet government itself is affected: according to Geoffrey Howe, there are “... very few discussions of government decisions in full Cabinet”.

This strengthening of the PM’s position was further extended by Margaret Thatcher, who had a preference for informal groups. In these, a minister prepares a policy paper; it is discussed with the PM, policy advisers and appropriate civil servants and a decision arrived at. The Cabinet itself has little or no role in the process.

Tony Blair has continued and extended this approach, with his preference for bi-lateral meetings with ministerial colleagues. This style of “sofa meetings” was criticised by Lord Butler’s committee investigating the run-up to the Iraq war.

The widespread use of Cabinet committees and bi-laterals has been criticised as a limitation on Cabinet government and an enhancement of the PM’s power. A skilful PM can ensure that particular decisions are taken by a small group of trusted ministers, giving little or no chance that it can be debated more widely.

One can conclude that the growth of Cabinet committees and, in particular, bi-laterals have increased the power of the PM at the expense of the rest of the Cabinet.

THE POWER OF THE PRIME MINISTER

The PM has considerable potential and actual power in the British political system, deriving from a number of sources.

Governmental power:

> to appoint - and to dismiss - members of the Cabinet and junior ministers; Mrs Thatcher systematically rid her Cabinet of potential opponents - critics argued that she created a Cabinet of "yes-men"

> to determine the agenda of Cabinet meetings

> to summarise Cabinet discussions and to indicate the decision

> to appoint Cabinet committees and refer items to be considered to them

> to dissolve parliament and to call an election

> as head of government, the PM takes a leading role in major policy areas, such as international affairs and economic policy.

The power of patronage:

> senior civil service appointments - Mrs Thatcher was said to appoint only those who were sympathetic to her approach and her politics

> appointments to the C of E, judiciary, quangos, the BBC, etc

> honours, especially peerages and knighthoods, as rewards for loyalty, etc - examples in the Conservative years included newspaper editors, most long serving Tory MPs, leading business figures; the current PM has been accused of honouring “Tony’s cronies” - for example, Melvyn Bragg.

Power based on party authority:

> control (in the case of the Conservatives) or significant influence (in the case of the Labour Party) over the party organisation

> party loyalty by MPs and others - unwillingness to damage the party publicly

> control of the whips within Parliament.


Constraints on Prime Ministerial power

Despite the apparent power of the Prime Minister, the PM does not operate in a political vacuum and must take account of other sources of power and other influences:

> most Cabinet ministers are usually powerful politicians in their own right - they should be able to fight for their point of view or stand up to the PM

> the PM is unlikely to be able to have a detailed knowledge of the whole range of departmental issues - this gives departmental ministers considerable leeway in decision making

> the PM cannot get too far out of step with Parliamentary opinion or party opinion for fear of rebellion

> the media can be a powerful constraint on the PM – for example, Tony Blair’s weak approach to European affairs for fear of antagonising the Sun.

If Prime Ministers create too many enemies among their colleagues or get too out of step with party opinion, then they run the risk of losing their position - as Mrs Thatcher found to her cost

WHAT INFLUENCES THE SUCCESS OF PMs?

Personality

Whatever the power available to a Prime Minister, the extent to which that power is utilised and how it is managed depends to a considerable degree on the personality of the office holder. Some are aggressive and dominant (Thatcher), others more collegiate, seeking to compromise with colleagues (Major).

Political skill

Whatever their personal characteristics or motivation, Prime Ministers need to be able to demonstrate skill in executing the office. Such skills include:

> being able to look the part, having the right image

> the ability to select Cabinet and other ministers who are themselves competent and loyal

> the ability to lead and be decisive

> being able to persuade - by argument, appeals to loyalty, friendship, etc, being a good listener

> manipulation - by controlling agendas, forming committees, summing up in a particular way, the use of Press leaks, etc.


External factors

Finally, the success or otherwise of a Prime Minister may be affected by external factors:

> the global economic situation

> the climate of expectation prevailing

> the immediate political situation - the Falklands war benefited Mrs Thatcher in 1983, the BSE crisis harmed Major in 1996/7.

PRIME MINISTER'S "DEPARTMENT"

The Cabinet Office

A Cabinet Secretariat was first formed during the 1st World War. It later developed into what is now the Cabinet Office. Its functions include:

> the preparation of agendas and papers for the Cabinet and its committees

> informing departments of decisions and what is required of them

> reporting on the implementation of decisions

> liaison between departments.

It is staffed by civil service “high flyers” and by the PM’s own advisers. The Cabinet Secretary reports directly to the PM.

Despite its title, therefore, the Cabinet Office is very much an organisational support for the Prime Minister and strengthens the PM’s position relative to the rest of the Cabinet.


Downing Street

The Downing Street machine is now very extensive:

> a private office, which deals with Parliamentary business, correspondence, etc

> a press office, which has a powerful political role in feeding information, including unattributable briefings, to the media

> a policy unit to advise on policy, write speeches, etc

> political advisers, who give political advice independent of other Cabinet ministers.

It is this proliferation of independent units responsible directly to the Prime Minister which has added force to the argument that Cabinet government is giving way to Prime Ministerial government.

The Prime Minister has a great deal of power in the British political system - so much that in recent decades there has been the suggestion that the system is becoming one of "Prime Ministerial government" rather than the more traditional one of Cabinet government.

"PRIME MINISTERIAL" OR "CABINET" GOVERNMENT

Cabinet government

According to the traditional view of government, Britain is governed by a Cabinet which has three main functions:

> final determination of policy to be submitted to parliament

> control of the executive

> coordination of the different departments of state.

The role of Prime Minister in this was seen by some as similar to the foreman of a jury, or as "primus inter pares" (first among equals).

The Cabinet government view is that the full Cabinet has collective responsibility for government:

> the cabinet and its committees are the key institutions for decision making in Whitehall

> collective responsibility ensures that a number of ministers are involved in each decision and therefore a plurality of views will be represented

> the Cabinet acts as a restraint on the power of the PM, as Cabinet ministers have their own power bases and have access to information and expertise through their departments that the PM does not have.


Prime Ministerial government

The Prime Ministerial government thesis suggests that power has been concentrated in the hands of the PM and that the PM is the dominant figure in the British governmental system.

It has been argued that in recent years the powers of the PM have been increased to the extent that the PM now exercises supreme authority in the determination of policy. Richard Crossman, in his introduction to Bagehot's "The English Constitution" (1963), said:

"The post war epoch has seen the final transformation of Cabinet government into Prime Ministerial government."

This view has been supported and elaborated by Tony Benn and it was argued that Mrs Thatcher's period of office exemplified and extended this trend.

There is a view that the power of the PM is now so great that some holders of the office are, in effect, more like a president than “first among equals”. Tony Blair in particular has been accused of adopting a presidential style, not least in his handling of the decision to go to war against Iraq.


Evidence for PM government

> the power to control Cabinet meetings, committees, decisions; the ability to hire and fire ministers; the interference in departmental affairs; the intervention in civil service appointments; the use of patronage - these are all used to indicate the power of the PM

> the role of the media, especially television, has emphasised this trend - television focuses heavily on the PM as an individual, the government is often presented as being personified by the PM, news items rely on the comings and goings of the PM

> it has even been argued that the British PM has more power within the UK political system than the American President has in the US system: the US President can have actions vetoed by Congress and is subject to the Supreme Court - no such formal restraints exist for the British PM.

Click here for an article by Peter Henessey, a constitutional expert, criticising what he calls "a supine cabinet" which failed to stand up to the PM over the Iraq war.


Evidence against PM government

> the PM is not sufficiently well equipped organisationally to challenge the knowledge and expertise of departments; the Policy Unit and the Cabinet Office cannot match departmental staff in numbers or resources

> "For much of the five and a half years during which I served in Downing Street I was more aware of the constraints on, rather than the massive impact of, prime ministerial power" - Bernard Donoughue, former adviser to Harold Wilson.

> As for the presidential theme, while it is true the PM may have substantial power, it is less firmly based than that of a directly elected President. President Clinton’s ability to survive impeachment and a Senate trial (1999) demonstrates that the US President’s power is very much more firmly based than that of the British PM.

> A PM who loses the support of senior colleagues will very quickly be replaced - for example, Chamberlain 1940, Eden 1957, Macmillan 1963. Even Mrs Thatcher, for all her apparent accumulation of power, came face to face with the limitations of the Prime Minister's power very publicly in November 1990.


Conclusion

It is clear that the political context in which PMs operate has changed during this century. In particular, the focus of media attention is very much on the person of the Prime Minister. It is also clear that some PMs have pushed their powers to the limit.

But it is also clear that there has been no institutional change which has formally handed more powers to Prime Ministers. And even in the Thatcher Cabinet, there were ministers prepared to restrain the PM in matters of policy.

There is undoubtedly a tension between Prime Ministers and Cabinets - but much depends on the character and style of the individuals concerned (one has only to contrast Thatcher and Major to see this). And much may also depend on the political circumstances of the time.

Therefore, it may be too simplistic to define the system of government as being "Prime Ministerial" or "Cabinet". Consideration must be given to all of the intervening variables before reaching a conclusion on any particular Prime Minister or any particular period of time.