"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.