Does the Prime Minister dominate and control the Executive?

It has long been argued that there has been a steady erosion of collective Cabinet government in the UK. This argument states that the primary reason for this has been the growing power and authority of the Prime Minister. In this view the PM is no longer “primus inter pares” but is now simply “primus”. The result has been that the UK is coming closer to the Presidential model of government found in the United States.

The formal, constitutional role of the British Prime Minister suggests an extremely powerful individual, one with the potential to dominate government and the whole political landscape. The Prime Minister is awarded with powers that certainly make him appear formidable.

The powers of the Prime Minister are quite extensive. The PM has massive powers of patronage over the Church of England, senior judges, Privy Councillors and civil servants. It is in cabinet and government, however, that the power of patronage becomes crucial.

The power of patronage assists the PM in the dominance of the Executive as appointing ministers allows the PM the opportunity to reward loyal supporters and to punish critics in their party. It is the PM who decides the members of the Cabinet, therefore the PM will appoint a cabinet of people who can be relied upon to endorse their policy proposals and preferences. Margaret Thatcher was often accused of replacing critics with those who agreed with her brand of right wing Conservatism. More recently Tony Blair used ministerial reshuffles to remove the last vestiges of Old Labour and creating a predominantly ‘Blairite’ Cabinet.

Furthermore, two other developments have served to enhance the power of patronage and thus the ability of the PM to control the executive. First, the number of junior ministers has increased as the responsibilities of government have grown. As a result more and more MPs in the governing party owe their position to the PM. MP’s want to show their loyalty and obedience in order to be rewarded by appointment to a ministerial post in the future.

Second, the latter half of the 20^th Century saw the rise of the ‘career politician’. An increasing number of MPs have pursued politics as a full time, long-term vocation and they therefore aim to secure a ministerial post. This effectively boosts the dominance of the PM who can control the career prospects of hundreds of MPs. Not only does the PM make ministerial appointments but hey also appoint chairs of committees. A prestigious post which would be satisfactory for any career politician.

However there are limitations on the PM’s power. With regards to the power of patronage, Prime Ministers do not have a free hand in making ministerial appointments. They need to ensure that the cabinet contains a cross section of opinion as well as a blend of youth on the one hand and political seniority on the other. Even an apparently powerful PM like Thatcher felt obliged to include Cabinet MPs from the pro-European wing of the Conservative Party, such as Kenneth Clarke, Douglas Hurd, and Chris Patten. She never did appoint a cabinet full of Thatcherites at any time during her 11 years as PM. Tony Blair also felt it necessary to include people like John Prescott in his Cabinets even though Prescott was ideologically opposed to Blair on many issues.

Moreover, some MPs have to be included in the Cabinet by virtue of their popularity and stature in the wider party. E.g. Tony Benn was included in Wilson’s and Callaghan’s Labour governments despite the fact they did not agree with his views, because of his widespread popularity. Prescott and Gordon Brown are also examples from the Blair years.

Furthermore, Prime Ministers sometimes decide that it is wise to offer a back bench rebel a ministerial appointment to keep them quiet. Tony Blair gave Gordon Brown the prestigious post of Chancellor of the Exchequer to pacify any real challenge to his leadership and as a reward for is past loyalty.

In addition there are further limitations on the ability of the PM to use the power of patronage to dominate the Executive. For example if the party has been in opposition then the first Cabinet is usually the shadow Cabinet since those ministers have a mandate. Also, frequent cabinet reshuffles can make a PM look indecisive as well as raising questions about the PM’s political judgment. It may also alienate those who have been overlooked (Robin Cook and Geoffrey Howe). Gordon Brown has been criticized of too frequent cabinet reshuffles.

However there are other methods by which the PM can control the Executive. It is the PM who controls the timing and agenda of Cabinet meetings as well as ‘taking the feeling of the meeting.’ There are though some items that demand a place on the agenda (for example a report by the Foreign Secretary). Some items must be included because of their urgency or ministers may insist on the inclusion of an item. Also the PM must be careful in summing up the view of the Cabinet.

As the only elected office in a presidential model of government, the president has complete authority over the Executive. Thatcher and Blair were often accused of behaving more presidential rather than Prime Ministerial and thus dominating the Executive.  Thatcher and Blair have both been charged with working within a reduced (kitchen) cabinet or clique of key advisors. Tony Blair conferred with his unelected Press secretary Alastair Campbell. Blair preferred ‘bilaterals’ – meetings with one or two relevant personnel. In such instances the Cabinet is reduced to a rubber stamp, being informed of and then approving decisions made in smaller meetings.

In addition the Office of the PM is increasingly becoming the epicentre of the policy making process, akin to a presidential system, even to the detriment of the cabinet and at the expense of the legislature. Such practice certainly reinforces the view that the PM controls the Executive.

On the other hand there are PM’s who honour the ‘primus inter pares’ principle and place the Cabinet at the centre of the decision making process. The Cabinet acts as a check against any attempt by the PM to dominate the Executive. John Major’s administrations (1990-97) are often offered as examples.

The doctrine of collective responsibility can both help and hinder the PM’s ability to dominate the Executive. Within Cabinet and Cabinet Committees, ministers are permitted to express their own views and disagree with each other up to the point at which a formal decision is reached, or policy adopted. After that however, all ministers must publically endorse the decision and keep their doubts private.

The practice of collective responsibility therefore strengthens the authority of the PM. It maintains an image of public unity and ensures better decisions are reached.

Nevertheless, collective responsibility is an effective check on the PM’s ability to control the Executive. If a minister is strongly opposed to a decision reached at Cabinet they must be quiet or resign. The consequences of a high profile resignation can seriously undermine a PM’s authority and ability to control the Executive. A series of high profile resignations ultimately toppled Margaret Thatcher.

Michael Heseltine, the Secretary of State for Defence, resigned from the Thatcher Cabinet in 1986 because of his opposition to the government’s policy concerning the Westland helicopter company at Yeovil, Dorset. Thatcher was allowing a takeover by American company Sikorsky, rather than allow a European consortium to rescue the company.

In November 1990 Geoffrey Howe resigned as he was increasingly exasperated by both Thatcher’s stance towards Europe and her leadership style.

Robin Cook resigned from Tony Blair’s Cabinet as a result of his opposition to the Iraq war. Clare Short broke collective responsibility as regards the war in Iraq and although she was not fired she later resigned in protest to the contingency plan. These cases effectively reduced the authority of Blair and weakened his ability to control the Executive.

Ultimately it was high profile resignations and pressure from their respective cabinets, due partially to their Presidential style of leadership which cost both Thatcher and Blair their premierships. Neither personalities lost an election, nor were removed by their own backbenchers, rather they bowed to pressure from their own ministers, thus demonstrating the limits of a PM’s ability to control the Executive.

There are a variety of reasons given for the growth in the power of the Prime Minister although the validity of these reasons seems to vary with different leaders. Opponents of Prime Ministerial government view would dispute the idea that Cabinet government is dead. While the Prime Minister may lead the government the British executive is still a collective one.