can the PM dominate cabinet? Flashcards
(7 cards)
Paragraph One ➡️ The Prime Ministers Power Of Patronage vs
Including Big Beasts
FOR-
An effective Prime Minister can use patronage to shape their Cabinet, promoting allies, removing poor performers, and sidelining rivals to strengthen their authority and push their agenda. New PMs often replace previous ministers with loyalists. For example, Liz Truss removed key Johnson allies like Priti Patel, Nadine Dorries, and Dominic Raab.
Keir Starmer’s cabinet was largely made up of politically reliable figures from his shadow team, few of whom were well-known, helping him maintain control, avoid leaks, and prevent leadership challenges—even with a -40% net favourability in February 2025.
PMs can also discipline ministers to enforce unity. In November 2023, Rishi Sunak sacked Suella Braverman for publishing an unapproved Times article accusing police of bias, breaching the ministerial code and challenging his authority.
Paragraph One ➡️ The Prime Ministers Power Of Patronage vs
Including Big Beasts
AGAINST -
On the other hand, the Prime Minister’s power of patronage shouldn’t be overstated. In order to
maintain their authority over large and often divided parties, they have to represent different
factions of the party. This limits the extent to which they can appoint allies who will be easy to
manage.
For example, Theresa May appointed a cabinet mixing Brexiteers (Boris Johnson, David Davis) and Remainers (Phillip Hammond, Jeremy Hunt).
PMs must also accommodate powerful “big beasts” in their party. Tony Blair’s authority was constrained by Chancellor Gordon Brown, who blocked Blair’s push to join the Euro by setting economic tests controlled by the Treasury.
When a PM is weak, collective responsibility breaks down. Under May, Boris Johnson frequently leaked against her policies and wrote critical articles but couldn’t be sacked due to his popularity and May’s weakness, showing her inability to control her cabinet.
Paragraph Two ➡️ The Prime Minister Can Bypass The Cabinet vs
The Cabinet Remain Important In Decision Making
FOR-
Prime Ministers often dominate policy by bypassing the full cabinet, using smaller committees, informal groups, and Special Advisors (SPADs). This allows more control and easier compromise with fewer ministers.
Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown negotiated economic policy bilaterally, with Blair’s “sofa government” style avoiding full cabinet meetings. Theresa May led Brexit decisions through the cabinet’s EU Exit committee, while Boris Johnson used the COVID-19 Strategy committee, giving extra power to ministers like Matt Hancock and Michael Gove.
SPADs, hired directly by the PM, have grown in influence—from 8 under John Major to 30 under Blair—playing a key role in shaping government strategy.
Unelected special advisors can wield great power. Dominic Cummings held immense influence in Boris Johnson’s government—more than many cabinet ministers—and Johnson defended him despite a COVID rules breach.
By summer 2024, Starmer appointed over 20 special advisors in Number 10 and 80 across government. Starmer’s Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, is a key unelected advisor with significant influence over policy.
Modern PMs rely less on cabinet and more on Downing Street’s growing central support. Under Blair, the Strategy Unit shaped long-term policy, while the Delivery Unit monitored progress, helping Blair push through key Health and Education reforms.
Paragraph Two ➡️ The Prime Minister Can Bypass The Cabinet vs
The Cabinet Remain Important In Decision Making
AGAINST -
Prime Ministers can only partially bypass their cabinet and must rely on it to deliver and settle key policies. The UK government’s core-executive model means power is fragmented, so PMs act as managers coordinating ministers and appointments to maximize influence.
For example, Theresa May’s Brexit deal was shaped by hardline Brexiteers like Boris Johnson and the DUP, reflecting cabinet and party pressure due to her lack of majority.
Sunak gave autonomy to Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Foreign Secretary David Cameron—Cameron led UK peace talks on Israel-Palestine and US-Yemen responses, while Hunt announced economic policies like the 2023 National Insurance cut.
Since 2010, with small majorities and coalitions, PMs must consult key ministers for support—David Cameron worked closely with Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
The cabinet is vital for projecting unity and crisis management; during COVID, Johnson relied heavily on ministers like Health Secretary Matt Hancock to present a united front
Paragraph Three ➡️ The Prime Minister Can Develop Personal
Popularity vs The Prime Minister Needs The Support Of The
Cabinet
FOR-
Prime Ministers can dominate their cabinets by building strong personal popularity and using the media to present themselves as outsiders, a concept known as Michael Foley’s ‘Spatial Leadership.’ This approach lets PMs distance themselves from their party and government to appeal directly to the public and push through their policy agenda.
For example, in the 2019 election, Boris Johnson positioned himself apart from the Conservative Party, which had been in power for nine years, presenting a promise of change, including moving away from austerity. His personal popularity helped the Conservatives win many former Labour voters in the Red Wall, strengthening his mandate to drive policy.
The rise of television, social media, and televised leader debates has increased the importance of a PM’s personal image. This direct public connection gives them the power to influence policy beyond traditional party structures.
Tony Blair also successfully cultivated media support, especially from the right-wing press. His high popularity early in his premiership allowed him to centralize control over major policy areas like health and education, demonstrating how personal appeal can translate into political dominance.
Paragraph Three ➡️ The Prime Minister Can Develop Personal
Popularity vs The Prime Minister Needs The Support Of The
Cabinet
AGAINST-
On the other hand Prime Ministers still ultimately rely on the party in order to pass the
government’s legislative agenda and on the Cabinet to deliver government policy. If the Prime
Minister distances themselves too much from either/seeks to sideline the cabinet in particular,
the cabinet can remove them.
This happens in particular when the Prime Minister is no longer popular with the public and
therefore would no longer help the party win the next election.
The 3 Conservative Party Prime Ministers - May, Johnson and Truss - were ultimately
removed by their cabinets and the wider Conservative Party after becoming unpopular.
It can be argued that the office of the Prime Minister is elastic; the more a Prime Minister
attempts to expand the office the more resistance they face.
For example, Margaret Thatcher was ultimately removed by her cabinet despite her big
majority. This was in part due to her pursuing the Poll Tax in 1989/90 despite opposition
from all sides, including within her own party, and without consulting local authorities fully.
Her sidelining of the cabinet and conviction politics ultimately came back to bite her and
bring her down.
conclusion-
In conclusion, Prime Ministers cannot fully dominate their Cabinets. Popular PMs with large majorities have more influence over policy and better control, while weaker PMs must share power with ‘big beasts’ and often face removal.
Even strong PMs rely on their Cabinets to deliver policy, must accommodate powerful ministers, and risk being ousted if they sideline key figures. Therefore, true domination of the Cabinet is limited.
