PM Flashcards
(86 cards)
How does the power of patronage enhance a Prime Minister’s ability to dominate the Cabinet?
Patronage allows a Prime Minister to shape the Cabinet by appointing allies, removing poor performers, and bringing in fresh talent who support their vision. This helps maintain loyalty and discipline, ensuring Cabinet decisions align with the PM’s agenda and policy priorities. It also enables PMs to marginalise internal party factions or rival figures who may destabilise leadership.
Why is patronage especially significant for new Prime Ministers?
New PMs often reorganise the Cabinet to establish authority quickly, remove ministers associated with the previous leadership, and replace them with loyalists who share their ideological stance. This strategic reshuffling helps consolidate power early in a premiership and signal a change in leadership direction.
How did Liz Truss use her powers of patronage upon becoming Prime Minister in 2022?
Liz Truss dismissed prominent ministers from Boris Johnson’s Cabinet, including Priti Patel (Home Secretary), Nadine Dorries (Culture Secretary), and Dominic Raab (Deputy PM and Justice Secretary). She replaced them with loyal allies to strengthen her control over the government and eliminate internal opposition.
What role did loyalty and reliability play in Keir Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet appointments?
Keir Starmer prioritised loyalty and political reliability in appointing his first Shadow Cabinet. Most appointees had already held the same positions for years, creating stability and cohesion. Their shared ideological alignment with Starmer allowed him to control messaging and decision-making, and reduced the risk of public dissent or Cabinet leaks.
Why has Starmer faced little internal opposition within his Cabinet?
Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet consists mostly of less well-known figures (not ‘big beasts’), reducing the chance of leadership challenges. Despite his February 2025 net favourability rating of -40%, he has not faced significant Cabinet-level criticism or rebellion. The lack of high-profile ministers has enabled Starmer to dominate decision-making without challenge.
What is the significance of ‘big beasts’ in limiting PM dominance?
‘Big beasts’ are high-profile, independent-minded ministers with substantial public recognition and influence. They can resist PM control, attract media attention, and mobilise internal party opposition. Without such figures in the Cabinet (as in Starmer’s case), the PM faces fewer checks on their authority.
How does collective ministerial responsibility support PM dominance?
This constitutional convention requires all ministers to publicly support Cabinet decisions or resign. PMs can use it to enforce loyalty, suppress dissent, and threaten dismissal to ensure unity. The fear of removal helps keep ministers aligned with the PM’s direction.
How did Sunak assert authority over Cabinet ministers using disciplinary powers in 2023?
In November 2023, Sunak sacked Suella Braverman as Home Secretary after she published a Times article criticising the Metropolitan Police’s handling of pro-Palestinian protests. She accused the police of “playing favourites” and labelled protesters “hate marchers”. The article was not approved by Downing Street, breaching the ministerial code. Her removal demonstrated Sunak’s willingness to enforce discipline and reassert his authority amidst internal Conservative divisions.
What message did Sunak’s sacking of Braverman send to his Cabinet and party?
It signalled that Sunak would not tolerate ministers who defied his authority or breached collective responsibility. The sacking also aimed to prevent further destabilisation within the Conservative Party and reinforce Cabinet discipline, especially during a period of political volatility.
What are ‘big beasts’ in the context of UK politics, and how do they affect PM dominance?
‘Big beasts’ are senior, influential politicians with significant public profiles and internal party support. Their experience, popularity, and political capital can limit a Prime Minister’s authority, as they are harder to control or dismiss without causing internal instability or public controversy.
How was Tony Blair’s authority limited by a ‘big beast’ within his own Cabinet?
Despite being a powerful PM, Blair’s authority was constrained by Chancellor Gordon Brown. Blair had to concede major influence to Brown over economic policy. Brown’s dominance of the Treasury meant Blair couldn’t implement policies — like joining the European Single Currency — without Brown’s consent.
What was Gordon Brown’s role in blocking Blair’s plan to join the European Single Currency?
Brown devised the “Five Economic Tests” as a condition for adopting the euro. He insisted that the Treasury would determine whether the tests had been met, effectively taking the final decision out of Blair’s hands and ensuring the UK did not join under Blair’s leadership.
How does a Prime Minister’s popularity or strength affect their ability to control ‘big beasts’?
A strong and popular PM may manage or sideline ‘big beasts’, but a weak or unpopular PM often lacks the authority to control them. In such cases, ‘big beasts’ can challenge or undermine the PM with little fear of consequences, reducing Cabinet cohesion and limiting PM dominance.
How did Boris Johnson undermine Theresa May’s authority while serving in her Cabinet?
As Foreign Secretary, Johnson frequently leaked his dissatisfaction with government policy, undermining May through off-record briefings and weekly critical articles in the Daily Telegraph. His public dissent weakened May’s credibility and disrupted Cabinet unity.
Why couldn’t Theresa May sack Boris Johnson, and what does this reveal about her leadership?
Johnson was highly popular among Conservative Party members, especially Brexiteers. May’s weak leadership and lack of political capital meant she could not afford to sack him without sparking deeper internal divisions. This exposed her limited control over her own Cabinet.
What does May’s inability to sack Johnson show about PM power in practice?
It illustrates that when a Prime Minister lacks authority or popularity, they may be unable to enforce collective Cabinet discipline. Powerful ministers may act independently without facing consequences, highlighting limits to PM dominance.
How do modern Prime Ministers bypass the Cabinet when making policy decisions?
PMs often use informal methods such as smaller Cabinet committees, bilateral meetings with ministers, Special Advisors (SPADs), and Downing Street staff to make decisions. These forums allow for greater control and quicker consensus than full Cabinet meetings, reducing the role of the collective Cabinet in decision-making.
Why do Prime Ministers prefer using informal groups and committees over full Cabinet discussions?
Smaller groups are easier to manage, more efficient for compromise, and reduce internal conflict. Full Cabinet meetings are often used to announce policies already decided elsewhere, turning the Cabinet into more of a rubber-stamping body.
What is ‘sofa government’, and how does it illustrate PM dominance?
‘Sofa government’ refers to Tony Blair’s style of informal, behind-the-scenes decision-making. Blair often avoided formal Cabinet meetings, preferring private discussions and bilateral meetings with key ministers like Gordon Brown, enabling him to dominate government policy more easily.
How did Theresa May use Cabinet committees to dominate the policy-making process?
May relied on the Committee on Exiting the European Union to shape key Brexit decisions. This limited the wider Cabinet’s input and allowed her to retain more control over negotiations and strategic direction.
How did Boris Johnson use Cabinet committees during the COVID-19 crisis?
Johnson made key pandemic decisions through the COVID-19 Strategy Committee. Ministers like Matt Hancock (Health Secretary) and Michael Gove (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) had influential roles, but decision-making remained concentrated among a small group, reducing broader Cabinet involvement.
What are SPADs and how have they contributed to PM dominance in recent years?
SPADs (Special Advisors) are unelected political aides hired directly by the Prime Minister. They assist with policy development and government strategy, often acting as key influencers. Their increasing numbers and power have enabled PMs to bypass ministers and traditional Cabinet processes.
How did the role of SPADs expand under Tony Blair and Boris Johnson?
John Major had just 8 SPADs, but Blair increased this to around 30 by 2005. Under Johnson, SPADs gained exceptional influence—most notably Dominic Cummings, who shaped strategy and messaging, arguably wielding more influence than many Cabinet ministers.
What does the Dominic Cummings case reveal about Johnson’s style of governing?
Johnson defended Cummings even after a major scandal (breaking COVID rules to visit Barnard Castle), showing the extent of his reliance on SPADs. This highlighted how unelected advisors could become more central to government than elected ministers, reinforcing PM dominance.
