UK Executive Flashcards

Question

ETVT the UK PM is presidential.

Answer 1

The concept of "presidentialisation" (whereby the Prime Minister (PM) is increasingly taking on characteristics typically associated with a president) is at odds with the UK’s parliamentary system, which is elects a PM based on a party mandate. Presidentialisation, however, suggests that the PM can bypass the wider executive and claim a personal mandate from the public and the media to pursue their policy agenda. By examining the role of the Cabinet, the authority of the PM, and the influence of the media, this essay will argue that while the PM has certainly become more powerful in recent decades, they are not yet truly "presidential." The extent of their power remains contingent on various checks and balances, and the PM continues to be accountable to Parliament. However, the nature of the UK’s uncodified constitution could evolve to alter this dynamic, and there continues to be caveats to presidentialism. * Role of the cabinet: On the one hand, the Cabinet represents the UK’s most senior decision-making body in Parliament, but its authority has been challenged by the emergence of a presidential-style PM. This was particularly evident under Tony Blair: Cabinet meetings under Blair were often ad hoc and decided by the PM, with many lasting only 35-40 minutes per week. These meetings primarily served as a formality rather than a forum for significant policy discussion, as Blair had already made key decisions beforehand. This situation mirrored a more presidential approach, where a president does not necessarily need Cabinet or wider executive support to pursue decisions. Blair was notorious for relying on his "sofa cabinet," a small group of trusted advisors with whom he discussed crucial policy decisions before presenting them to the full Cabinet. Further, the PM has the ability to create parliamentary committees and expand the role of the Cabinet. Under Blair, for instance, he expanded the private and Cabinet offices and created the role of Press Secretary to manage media relations, with figures like Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson playing key roles. This ability to shape the structure of government, bypassing elected senior political figures, further demonstrates the increasing power of the PM and the presidential nature of their role. By controlling the Cabinet’s composition, the PM can reward loyalty and punish dissent, as exemplified by Margaret Thatcher's decision to move a senior minister, Sir Geoffrey Howe, to a less prominent position after he disagreed with her Eurosceptic stance. This manipulation of Cabinet positions to maintain control and loyalty underscores the PM's personal mandate and power, much like a president who can bypass constitutional checks and act according to their own agenda. * Role of the cabinet: However, the PM is not presidential in the full sense, as the Cabinet and wider executive still exert significant influence over their authority. For example, if ministers no longer feel bound by collective ministerial responsibility due to a PM’s actions, it can carry substantial political consequences. A notable example of this was in 1990, when Home Secretary David Waddington resigned as a Thatcher loyalist over disagreements about her Eurosceptic policies, contributing to Thatcher’s own resignation weeks later. This highlights that the PM’s power is still contingent on the support of their party and Cabinet. Unlike a president, who typically resigns due to personal misconduct or violations of constitutional norms, a British PM must resign if their party and Cabinet lose confidence in them. This was clearly illustrated when 57 ministers resigned under Prime Minister Boris Johnson, ultimately leading to his resignation due to mounting political pressure. Furthermore, the lack of robust Cabinet discussion can undermine the PM's authority, as seen in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Blair's failure to adequately discuss the decision to invade Iraq with his Cabinet and wider executive led to criticism that he lacked a legitimate mandate to engage in such a significant military action. This shows that PMs are not fully presidential, as the Cabinet’s role in shaping policy is crucial. If a PM fails to maintain support from their Cabinet, their leadership becomes untenable. This is in contrast to a president, who typically enjoys more autonomy and is not as directly accountable to a governing body. Historically, Prime Ministers who marginalize or bypass their Cabinet face serious political consequences. PM often resigns as response to the cabinet: in comparison, a US president has only resigned due to personal constitutional misconduct. * This illustrates that the Prime Minister remains "first among equals" rather than an independent, presidential figure, as their power and authority are still shaped by the collective decision-making processes within Cabinet. * Powers of the PM: Another key theme is the broader powers and role the Prime Minister (PM) plays. While it is true that the PM can wield significant power and at times act in a presidential manner, it is unhelpful to generalize this as the case for all PMs. In fact, recent examples have demonstrated the opposite. On one hand, the expanded powers and responsibilities of PMs in recent years reflect a shift towards a more presidential-style premiership. For instance, the PM has international duties in diplomacy and representing the country on the global stage. A recent example is in 2025, when Keir Starmer greeted Donald Trump with a state visit in a highly diplomatic move to maintain the special relationship between the UK and the US. Furthermore, to some extent, the PM can act with a personal mandate. For example, in 2019, Boris Johnson largely won the election with a heavy focus on "getting Brexit done," and with his personal mandate, he secured an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons, allowing him to deliver major constitutional changes. This reflected the PM’s personal political prowess. Similarly, Tony Blair was able to champion constitutional reform and modernize the Labour Party based on his ideological vision and leadership. Additionally, the PM holds powers of political patronage and pardon. For example, Rishi Sunak used his resignation honours list in 2025 to appoint Michael Gove to the House of Lords. The PM also has control over the armed forces, which is significant. David Cameron, for example, overrode parliamentary conduct and select committees when deciding to intervene militarily in Syria. * Limits to the power of the PM: On the other hand, it can be argued that these expanded powers and responsibilities do not signify full "presidentialisation" but rather a growth in prime ministerial power and influence. The nature of how a PM acts in a presidential manner is also constrained by the circumstances under which they come to power. For example, Gordon Brown was unable to enact major legislative programmes due to inheriting the 2008 financial crisis, and Theresa May was caught in the quagmire of Brexit negotiations, which severely undermined any presidential-style leadership. At this point, strong Cabinet unity and discussion were crucial to resolving the crises. May, with a weak majority in the Commons, suffered three significant defeats on her proposed Brexit plans, further damaging her credibility. Thus, the PM is not truly presidential, as their powers are highly dependent on the circumstances they inherit and the size of their majority. This is what ultimately makes or breaks their legacy, unlike presidential systems where power is more centralized and consistent. Perhaps we will see a return to a more presidential style of governance with Starmer's commanding 412-seat majority in Parliament, which could effectively prevent any significant backbench rebellions. Many PMs are personally ill-suited or politically weak, hindering their ability to exert presidentialism. Whether a PM can act presidentially depends on their personality and power base, and the contemporary political situation. PM is ultimately accountable to the legislature, who can force their removal in a vote of no confidence. * Role of the media: A final point to consider is the role of the media, which plays a particularly strong part in the argument for the presidentialisation of the Prime Minister. However, the extent to which this is emphasised might be somewhat exaggerated. On one hand, the media is highly focused on the PM, especially during the highly publicised Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), which directly platforms the PM to a broad audience. The public recognises the PM as the most dominant political figure in the country. Furthermore, the advent of televised leadership debates has concentrated even more power and focus on the PM, positioning them as the figurehead and representative of the government. For example, the PM is expected to deliver key speeches on national affairs from outside Downing Street, often using the "bully pulpit" to reflect the national mood. Tony Blair's famous "People's Princess" speech after Princess Diana's death is a prime example, as it resonated deeply with the public and created an intimate connection between the PM and the people, which is often sought in presidential systems of governance. The PM frequently interacts with the public in a personal and relatable way, with Blair, for instance, speaking in the first person and using direct address to present himself as the voice of the entire nation ("This is the Britain I offer you"). The personality of the PM can thus contribute to a presidential image, as they are seen as the predominant figure in government. Margaret Thatcher, for example, was viewed as a strong and obstinate leader, which lent her a presidential-like presence. The rise of media and public image also shows that PMs have become more prominent figures, employing PR and communications strategies similar to those used by presidents. The personalisation of leadership is another significant factor, as the Prime Minister is increasingly viewed as the central figure in government, with media attention and election campaigns focusing more on their personality and leadership style than on their party or Cabinet. * Role of the media / image of the government: On the other hand, a counterargument could be made that just because a PM has high popularity, it does not necessarily make them "presidential" in the American sense. World leaders are generally expected to have a basic level of electoral popularity in order to be elected. For example, despite not being particularly charismatic, Keir Starmer was able to secure a large majority in the 2024 general election primarily due to the disarray within the Conservative Party, rather than on the basis of a personal mandate. Furthermore, scandals involving the Cabinet or the wider executive can be politically damaging, particularly when amplified by the media. The "sleaze" and corruption scandals within the Conservative Party, such as the "Partygate" and tax scandals, severely damaged Boris Johnson’s and Rishi Sunak’s credibility. This illustrates how the PM’s popularity and media relations are intrinsically tied to the broader executive. If the wider Cabinet suffers, it tarnishes the PM’s image as well, showing that the PM is not immune to the same public scrutiny. Therefore, media popularity does not necessarily equate to presidential power, and the PM is not always presidential in this regard.

Answer 2

In theory, the Cabinet represents the highest decision-making body in government, but in practice it is often sidelined by dominant PMs and constrained by other political factors. By evaluating the influence of Prime Ministerial leadership, the Cabinet’s role in political decision-making, the principles of ministerial responsibility, this essay will ultimately argue that the cabinet continues to play a meaningful role in British politics. While the Cabinet’s policymaking role may have weakened in some respects, it remains important in forming the government of the country, and ultimately their influence fluctuates based on the Prime Minister and political circumstances. * Dominance of the PM: A central argument suggesting that Cabinet government is no longer important lies in the increasing dominance of the Prime Minister. The Cabinet's capacity and willingness to challenge the Prime Minister is often limited, largely because the PM controls the composition of the Cabinet and exercises the power of political patronage. This allows Prime Ministers to appoint loyal allies, reshuffle dissenters, and cultivate obedience. For example, Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was widely supported by Cabinet members such as John Prescott, despite their private opposition. This highlights the weakened ability of the Cabinet to hold the PM to account, especially when loyalty outweighs independent judgement. Similarly, Margaret Thatcher used Cabinet appointments strategically to marginalise critics. When tensions arose over her increasingly Eurosceptic stance, she demoted Geoffrey Howe from Foreign Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons — a clear reduction in influence. This demonstrated the PM’s ability to sideline dissenting voices and reinforce control. Moreover, ministers may be reluctant to sacrifice their positions, privileges, and salaries, which further limits their willingness to challenge the PM. Recent examples reinforce this trend. Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership was marked by her decision to appoint only ideological allies — such as Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor and Jacob Rees-Mogg as Business Secretary — rather than a broad range of voices. Her Cabinet offered limited scrutiny, which contributed to the disastrous mini-budget and her rapid downfall. Furthermore, the rise of special advisers has also undermined the Cabinet’s role. Under Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings wielded significant influence over Brexit strategy, arguably more so than many senior ministers. These developments suggest that power has increasingly shifted towards the Prime Minister and their inner circle, weakening the Cabinet’s traditional role. * Role of the PM: However, it would be an overstatement to suggest that Cabinet government is no longer important. In times of crisis or division, the Cabinet remains essential in shaping key decisions and demonstrating unity. Theresa May’s 2018 Chequers Brexit plan, for example, was developed through extensive Cabinet consultation, reflecting the need to bring together different factions within her party. Despite her authority, May was constrained by internal Cabinet divisions — most notably from Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who frequently challenged her softer Brexit stance while remaining in Cabinet roles. This shows that, even within the convention of collective responsibility, ministers can still exercise influence and challenge the Prime Minister. Moreover, Prime Ministers must balance internal party dynamics when forming their Cabinets. They cannot simply appoint anyone; they must ensure representation across party factions. May, for instance, appointed both Leave and Remain supporters to her Cabinet to reflect the Brexit divide and maintain party cohesion. She also dismissed George Osborne as Chancellor to distance her government from the elitist image of the Cameron years — a strategic decision reflecting the importance of Cabinet optics. Liz Truss’s downfall further illustrates the continuing importance of Cabinet government. Her decision to exclude dissenting voices and appoint only loyalists backfired, as the lack of internal challenge resulted in poor policy decisions and a catastrophic economic response. This underscores the Cabinet’s value not only as a source of accountability but also as a check on unwise leadership. * In sum, while Prime Ministerial dominance has undoubtedly weakened the traditional collective decision-making role of the Cabinet, it remains a vital institution within British politics. Its influence may be less visible and often contingent on the political context, but in times of crisis or division, the Cabinet continues to play a meaningful and necessary role in shaping government policy and maintaining executive legitimacy. * Cabinet and policy-making: Another crucial point in evaluating the importance of Cabinet government lies in its role in formulating policy and making key political decisions. While collective ministerial responsibility may obscure the transparency of Cabinet debate, the practical power held by individual ministers in running their departments is significant and should not be overlooked. Some argue that in modern British politics, the Cabinet has become increasingly sidelined in decision-making. Prime Ministers often bypass full Cabinet discussions in favour of informal meetings with special advisers or select inner circles. For instance, Tony Blair’s “sofa government” approach saw him rely heavily on advisers like Alastair Campbell, making key decisions outside formal Cabinet structures and merely briefing the Cabinet afterward. This practice weakened the role of the Cabinet in shaping policy and reduced meetings to a formality. This trend has continued in recent years. Boris Johnson’s handling of COVID-19 decisions was often concentrated in the hands of the so-called “quad” — a small group of senior ministers — rather than the full Cabinet. Likewise, Liz Truss's 2022 mini-budget, formulated largely between Truss and her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, with minimal Cabinet input, led to economic instability and ultimately her downfall. These examples reinforce the idea that Cabinet meetings have become symbolic or "rubber-stamping" exercises rather than genuine arenas for debate and collective decision-making. Moreover, the dominance of the Prime Minister can limit individual ministers' policy agendas. The influence of party whips, the pressure of collective responsibility, and the centralisation of power around No.10 mean ministers may have little room to push independent policies, particularly if they go against the PM’s preferences. * Cabinet and decision-making: However, to suggest the Cabinet plays no meaningful role in decision-making would be an overstatement. Cabinet ministers hold direct responsibility for managing key state departments, such as Education, Health, Justice, and Defence. Their expertise and control over departmental operations ensure they remain integral to policy development and implementation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, has significant autonomy in crafting the national budget and influencing economic policy — as seen in Rishi Sunak’s COVID-19 economic support measures, which were vital to the government's overall response. During the pandemic, the Cabinet played a key role in balancing competing policy priorities — such as Sunak advocating for economic protection while Health Secretary Matt Hancock pushed for tighter restrictions. These internal debates highlight the value of Cabinet as a space for resolving complex policy tensions.Furthermore, Cabinets become especially influential during periods of political crisis or when the government is weakened. Boris Johnson's premiership began to unravel after Cabinet resignations — most notably from Sunak and Sajid Javid — triggered by scandals such as Partygate. Similarly, Margaret Thatcher’s fall in 1990 followed Cabinet unrest over the poll tax and European policy. These cases demonstrate that the Cabinet still retains the capacity to influence leadership and policy direction, especially when collective ministerial authority is exercised. Cabinet members are also chosen for their perceived expertise and credibility, meaning their insights are often necessary for shaping workable and effective policy. Ignoring their contributions would not only be politically unwise but would also waste significant institutional knowledge. In conclusion, although the influence of the Cabinet in decision-making has diminished due to the rise of a more “presidential” style of Prime Ministerial leadership, it continues to play an important — if less visible — role. Especially during times of crisis, departmental management, or internal party division, the Cabinet remains a vital body in policy deliberation and execution. * Ministerial responsibility: A final yet crucial point concerns the principle of collective ministerial responsibility, a cornerstone of Cabinet government within the UK’s parliamentary democracy. This convention ensures that all ministers must publicly support government decisions, even if they privately disagree. The effectiveness of this principle is contested, with strong arguments both in support of and against its current functionality in ensuring democratic accountability and Cabinet influence. Collective ministerial responsibility plays a key role in ensuring government unity and stability. By requiring all ministers to publicly support government policies, it presents a coherent and united front, both to Parliament and the public. This strengthens the government’s authority and prevents contradictory messaging that could undermine confidence. This principle was particularly evident during foreign policy crises, such as the government’s united stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, where consistent messaging was crucial. Similarly, throughout the Brexit negotiations (2016–2019), ministers were expected to maintain a publicly united position, even amid deep internal disagreements. Furthermore, the convention also allows for a mechanism of accountability. Ministers who fundamentally disagree with government decisions may resign, thereby putting pressure on the Prime Minister and drawing public attention to internal disputes. For example, Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak’s resignations in 2022 were instrumental in undermining Boris Johnson’s authority, ultimately leading to his resignation. Similarly, Robin Cook resigned in 2003 over the Iraq War, marking a pivotal moment that exposed rifts in Tony Blair’s Cabinet. Thus, collective responsibility not only promotes unity but can also act as a pressure valve, allowing ministers to voice dissent in an honourable and visible manner. * Ministerial responsibility: However, critics argue that collective ministerial responsibility often stifles genuine debate and undermines Cabinet accountability. Ministers are frequently forced to publicly defend policies they privately oppose, limiting meaningful scrutiny and reducing the Cabinet’s ability to influence policy. This was evident during Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations, where deep Cabinet divisions led to the resignations of prominent ministers such as Dominic Raab and Esther McVey in 2018, revealing that supposed Cabinet unity was more illusion than reality. Likewise, during Liz Truss’s 2022 mini-budget crisis, ministers were expected to support policies that many internally recognised as economically reckless — demonstrating how the convention can suppress necessary critique and debate. Moreover, in recent decades, Prime Ministers have increasingly centralised power, often bypassing the Cabinet entirely. For example, Tony Blair’s "sofa government" model saw key decisions, including those on the Iraq War, made through informal discussions with trusted advisers like Alastair Campbell, sidelining Cabinet ministers from real influence. Similarly, Boris Johnson’s leadership (2021–22) was marked by frequent policy shifts announced without full Cabinet consultation, with key figures like Dominic Cummings wielding disproportionate power behind the scenes. Such developments suggest that the Cabinet’s role in meaningful decision-making has eroded, and that collective responsibility can act more as a tool for Prime Ministerial dominance than for collaborative governance. * In conclusion, while collective ministerial responsibility continues to serve as a symbol of Cabinet unity and a mechanism for accountability through resignation, it increasingly appears to be used to mask internal disagreement and consolidate Prime Ministerial control. The principle may therefore be more effective in form than in substance in the contemporary UK political system.

UK Executive Flashcards

(26 cards)