Unit 2 revision booklet II Flashcards

Question

# 4 The limits on the power of the Prime Minister

Answer 1

- The opposition: The rise of Cameron checked Tony Blair’s power, and Gordon Brown’s too. The lack of unity of Labour under Corbyn has shown the opposite of this, although this has changed since 2017. As of 2022, Keir Starmer has tended to prove to be stiffer opposition to Johnson than Corbyn was. - The Party: Related to this is the increased pressure PM’s can face from their own party. it was backbenchers who brought down Margaret Thatcher by putting up the ‘stalking horse’ candidate. The leftist ‘Campaign Group’ of MPs were far from slavishly loyal to Blair and backbenchers, nervous about the safety of their own seats, were a constant source of irritation to Gordon Brown. Europe was a constant strain on Cameron. Theresa May was hampered by splits between Remainers and Brexiteers. - ‘Events, dear boy, events’: The single most important reason that Blair became a liability to his party is Iraq. Had circumstances unfolded differently after the invasion, voters may have been more willing to forgive Blair’s apparent tendency to toe the Bush line. Brexit did the same for Cameron and most likely will for May, too. - Cabinet colleagues: A PM cannot ignore his/her Cabinet forever. As Thatcher’s exit proved, a PM who rides roughshod over their Cabinet will pay the ultimate price (what Thatcher herself described as ‘regicide’). Even more the case in a Coalition which could always fragment at any point. This is less of an impediment during a period of strong majorities.

Answer 2

- Reward Loyalty e.g. Cameron’s appointment of loyalists such as Eric Pickles or George Osborne (also a personal friend). Johnson’s Cabinet = a cabinet of ‘leavers’. - Need for ‘Big Hitters’ or ‘big Beasts’ e..g Johnson’s appointment to May government (US President, Lyndon Johnson said of his rivals that it was, ‘better to have them inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.’). Arguably Gove’s position in Johnson’s cabinet. Suella Bravermann = dominant member of the ERG wing of the party & arguably cannot be fired due to Sunak’s reliance on them. - Need for a balanced Cabinet. Both ‘wings’ of the Party often need to be represented. E.g. within May’s government she is balancing off the Euro-sceptics and the pro-Europeans. There is also a need for a mix of men and women and for various regions of the country to be represented (and also backgrounds). Johnson hasn’t observed this. - Need to placate parliamentary party (or the ‘grassroots’) e.g. John Prescott was important for Blair as the ‘diplomatic envoy of the working classes to the Labour Party’. William Hague played a similar role for Cameron. Johnson has appointed popular figures from the backbenches like Rees-Mogg. - Because they’re good at their job (a novel idea!) e.g. Philip Hammond generally acknowledged as a proficient operator and safe pair of hands in the treasury - Because they’re friends of the PM (it does happen!). This criticism was levelled at David Cameron’s ‘Chumocracy’. Theresa May was a long-term friend of Damian Green, formerly the Sec of State for Work and Pensions.

Answer 3

- Formal Policy Approval Even if meaningful debate takes place elsewhere there must be a formal mechanism for approval: The Cabinet provides this – but not always. Under Blair at least 2 decisions (the Dome and Independence of Bank of England were not Cabinet approved). - Policy Coordination Cabinet is usually the place where policies are prioritised. Key role – know what is going on in other departments. ‘Join Up’ govt and manage the media. - Resolve Disputes If a disagreement between depts. emerges and cannot be solved this is the final place to settle it. Disputes usually involve the Treasury which ‘holds the purse strings’. - Forum for Debate Less common than it used to be but some issues have been debated at Cabinet level - controversial issues like Libya, Syria, HS2, spending cuts. - Dealing with crises When unexpected events arise Cabinet Ministers play a role in deciding policy. After Black Wednesday (1992) when the UK was forced out of the ERM the entire cabinet met and endorsed the Chancellors policy. Blair called emergency cabinets to discuss the Iraq war. The members of the dramatic sounding ‘Cobra’ subcommittee vary according to the situation at hand. Cobra has convened in response to the September 2000 fuel protests, 9/11, 7/7, recent terror attacks in Manchester and London, plus the Salisbury poisoning in March 2018. - Party Management How is the party doing – level of support – discuss election timing. Liaises with party whips to ‘feel the pulse’ of the parliamentary party.

Answer 4

Set the context: Debate about the location of executive power has been one of the recurrent themes of UK politics. Different views are fashionable at different times and they also tend to vary as the power and personality of the Prime Minister shifts as well. With a minority government, Theresa May had less power than recent PMs. Johnson has now got an 80 seat majority, the largest Conservative majority since Thatcher. Define key terms: Collective cabinet government is the traditional view of where power lies in the executive. It emphasises that power is collective not personal and is located in the cabinet rather than the prime minister. Outline of argument: However, over the last 20 years and with the advent of ‘conviction politicians’ such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair there has been much debate regarding the validity of this model. Some commentators have argued that other models such as those more focused on around the PM or Core Executive now have greater relevance.

Answer 5

- Collective Ministerial Responsibility: Policy Disagreements. Ministers may resign if they feel unable to support government policy. Michael Heseltine under Thatcher Government (the ‘Westland Affair’) Robin Cook, John Denham & Clare Short from Blair Government (over Iraq War). James Purnell in 2009 from the Brown government. Over 28 Ministers and Junior Ministers resigned from Theresa May’s government due to disagreements over her Brexit Policy, including Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, Esther McVey and David Davis. Mass resignation in July 2022 where over 62 cabinet and junior ministers resigned over Johnson’s failures of leadership over Partygate & Pincher scandal. - Individual Ministerial Responsibility: Ministerial Blunders (or not being ‘up to the job) where a mistake is made for which the minister is personally responsible. Edwina Currie in 1988 over her salmonella in eggs gaffe. Estelle Morris from Blair Government due to her struggles to perform in the Commons Chamber. Priti Patel in 2017 due to her unofficial meetings with Israeli officials whilst technically on ‘holiday’ without telling PM Theresa May Amber Rudd in 2018 due to lying to Parliament over the Windrush scandal. Nadhim Zahawi in 2022 over tax affairs. - Individual Ministerial Responsibility: Personal Scandals. Where there are revelations about the personal behaviour or conduct of a minister. Damian Green, 2017 over allegations of inappropriate use of ICT equipment and lying about this. Peter Mandelson from Blair Government (twice). Once for a house loan from another minister and another time over granting a passport. David Laws, one of the 5 Lib Dem Cabinet members was the first to go from the Cameron cabinet over his expenses. Chris Huhne followed in February 2012 over his transferred speeding points’ controversy.

Answer 6

- Point: Certainly, the Coalition had an impact here. In this instance it was coalition politics and the need to ‘coalitionise’ all key decisions that had ushered in a return to collective decision making and of cabinet government. Cameron has to be seen to be listening to his cabinet if he is to hold his coalition together. May has had to keep to this, to a certain extent, with her minority government and reliance on the DUP and divisions over Brexit. Strength in Cabinet is currently displayed by the retention of ‘Brexiteers’ and big beast such as Boris Johnson, plus May’s inability to reshuffle cabinet in the mould that she would like. It is a convincing model of executive power due to May’s vulnerabilities. Whilst Johnson was in hospital with Coronavirus, Raab stepped up as Boris Johnson’s deputy, implying effective leadership throughout cabinet. Many Ministers have represented the government during the Coronavirus epidemic. - Counterpoint: However, this would not be to deny that the trend within recent prime ministers is for cabinet government to have become less relevant. Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher had famously short cabinet meetings and Blair made a number of policy decisions where he simply did not consult cabinet at all (Millennium Dome, Independence of the Bank of England and some foreign policy decisions). Margaret Thatcher famously said of her cabinet ministers that she did not mind how much her ministers talked, “as long as they simply do what I say.’ Cameron, whenever he could, did try to act Presidentially. Johnson’s No.10 is effectively riding roughshod over Cabinet, threatening them pre-February reshuffle to ‘get on with their jobs and stop talking to the press’ or face the sack. Before Coronovirus, Johnson was beginning the process of centralising power in No.10, along with Cummings, as evidenced by the resignation of Javid in Feb 2020 during the reshuffle. The events of COVID have undermined these efforts at times.

Answer 7

- Point: The essence of these theories are that it is the PM who now dominates both the Executive and Parliament. This happens because the PM is both head of the Civil Service and the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Since the 1990s there is evidence that the PM’s power has grown even further as s/he has been able to take advantage of the increasing ‘presidentialism’ of the office. This has manifested itself in the appointment of special advisers (such as Alistair Campbell) replacing career civil servants, the growth of the Prime Minister’s Office and the boom in the number of media outlets hungry for stories. Prime Ministers such as Thatcher and Blair have taken advantage of their popular appeal to carve a niche for themselves above their own parties and reach out directly to the voters as if they themselves had been directly elected by them. In this way they set themselves very much apart from their cabinets. This is sometimes known as ‘spatial leadership’ and perhaps most clearly manifested itself during the various election campaigns when Thatcher, Blair and Cameron all became the ‘face’ of their party at the expense of its other members. Certainly both Thatcher and Blair perceived themselves as having a popular, personal mandate, even developing their own ideological stances (‘Thatcherism’ and ‘Blairism’). Johnson arguably perceives himself in this way as well. - Counterpoint: Despite the attractiveness of this theory it would be difficult to argue that it fits Theresa May, Gordon Brown and Cameron as well as it did Thatcher and Blair, and arguably Johnson. While Brown tried to present himself as a ‘conviction politician’ in the mould of a Thatcher or Blair – indeed Margaret Thatcher was one of his first visitors to Downing Street – he lacked the charisma, personal mandate and large parliamentary majorities of his two long-serving predecessors. Cameron certainly had more charisma than Brown and is more easy before the media but his failure to secure a majority at the 2010 election meant that he could not follow a ‘Presidential’ style of government from 2010-2015. Given May’s decision to boost her mandate in 2017 and it’s spectacular backfire, she cannot be said to be in the same mould as Thatcher or Blair.

Answer 8

- Point: Certainly it can be argued that this model fits the more recent incumbents of Downing Street. May, Cameron and Brown were not just restricted by cabinet but by a number of other actors too. The Credit Crunch has left little money at the Treasury and spending rounds in the foreseeable future look to be very tight. May is constrained by her parliamentary minority and she will face defeat if either wing of the Conservative party revolt. She is reliant on the goodwill of the DUP. Therefore, May’s relationships with the institutions that surrounded her (including cabinet, the cabinet office, the DPM and the Office of the Prime Minister) are of paramount importance and just as important as her own personal authority, and the same can be applied to Johnson too, as shown by his reluctance to fire Cummings after he appointed an advocate of eugenics into a government role in February 2020. - ‘In conclusion’ statement: In conclusion it can be argued that while the theory of collective cabinet government has been in steady decline this does not mean it is entirely defunct, in fact it could be argued that it has begun to return under May. Summary of main points: Whilst there was an undoubted ‘presidentialisation’ of UK politics under Thatcher and Blair it is difficult to make the case that May’s premiership fits this mould. She is highly dependent on the unified support of cabinet and therefore a strong argument can be made that collective cabinet government (along with other institutions in the core executive) is still highly relevant in explaining how the UK executive operates.

Answer 9

It should be noted that the power of the PM is variable between, as well as within, premierships. Whilst we can argue that Thatcher was more powerful than Major, it can equally be argued that their respective powers waxed and waned during both of their tenures in Number 10. The elastic nature of the office is not just due to the way in which PMs use their powers, but also due to the wider political climate. Theresa May’s personality is very different from Blair or Thatcher.

Answer 10

- Thatcher & Blair were ‘charismatic’ conviction politicians. Even accused of having a ‘messiah complex’. Boris Johnson is personally charismatic which has been viewed as an asset, although as of the December 2019 General Election he did not rank highly on trust, and to view him as a conviction politician could be seen as inaccurate. - Ability to perform on TV, in the Commons, in interviews and delivering speeches are crucial. Both Thatcher & Blair considered to be excellent in all four of these areas. - They were ‘transformational leaders’ and arguably achieved a lot as a result. - Major & Brown were more ‘transactional leaders’ neither being as strong or charismatic in the media or in the Commons. May does not have charisma despite attempts to portray her as ‘strong’. Truss’s personality traits (robotic/intransigent) contributed to her swift downfall after 45 days. - Cameron probably would have liked to be a transformational leader but was restrained by the framework of the coalition, and the perception that he dealt with major constitutional changes in a haphazard manner, leading the nickname ‘the essay deadline prime minister.’ May is also constrained by her minority government.

Answer 11

- The opposition: The rise of Cameron checked Tony Blair’s power, and Gordon Brown’s too. The lack of unity of Labour under Corbyn has shown the opposite of this, although since the election of 2017, Corbyn led a more united party. Starmer is regarded as a potentially more effective LOTO than Corybyn, and will most likely lead more forensic attacks on Johnson. - The Party: Related to this is the increased pressure PM’s can face from their own party. it was backbenchers who brought down Margaret Thatcher by putting up the ‘stalking horse’ candidate. The leftist ‘Campaign Group’ of MPs were far from slavishly loyal to Blair and backbenchers, nervous about the safety of their own seats, were a constant source of irritation to Gordon Brown. Europe was a constant strain on Cameron and continues to be for May. - ‘Events, dear boy, events’: The single most important reason that Blair became a liability to his party is Iraq. Had circumstances unfolded differently after the invasion, voters may have been more willing to forgive Blair’s apparent tendency to toe the Bush line. Brexit did the same for Cameron and most likely will for May, too. Johnson’s handling of the Coronavirus outbreak in 2020 will come to define his leadership. - Cabinet colleagues: A PM cannot ignore his Cabinet forever. As Thatcher’s exit proved, a PM who rides roughshod over their Cabinet will pay the ultimate price (what Thatcher herself described as ‘regicide’). Johnson was harmed by the resignations from his Cabinet and junior ministers (see above)

Answer 12

The role of Cabinet declined dramatically under Thatcher / Blair but has arguably revived under Cameron/May. - There have been some blips in this trend (Major’s accession following Thatcher’s regicide, and Blair post Iraq), but the pattern is one of less frequent meetings of the full Cabinet, coupled with a shortening of their length. In the 1960s meetings of Cabinet were biweekly, lasting upwards of 90 minutes. In Blair’s first term, they were once a week and went on for as little as 40 minutes. The demands of the Coalition brought cabinet back to the fore but it is still not the arena it was in the 1960s. May continues to have to work with her cabinet over Europe. - Increasing importance of Bilaterals between the PM and the relevant minister, (or smaller ‘kitchen’ cabinets, are where real decisions are made). Although Blair refused to recognise the description, Lord Butler (the former Cabinet Secretary) was critical of Blair’s preference for ‘sofa government’. ‘Denocracy’ is how Seldon describes this Blairite process of decision making in small, informal groups. In the Cameron government the ‘Quad’ (Cameron, Osborne, Clegg & Alexander) became a crucial decision making body. - Increasing reliance on the advice of non elected, special advisers. Jonathan Powell, Blair’s Chief of Staff, played a key role in the Good Friday negotiations (Northern Ireland). In particular, there has been an expansion of the media machinery. Blair created the Strategic Communication Unit, headed by a political appointee, Alastair Campbell, a man some dubbed ‘the real Deputy Prime Minister’. Cameron, too, relied on Spads. The role of the PM’s Chief Advisor Dominic Cummings since Boris Johnson became PM in July 2019 is widely assumed to be the strategic intellect running Number 10. - Personalisation of Politics. Related to the previous point, is the emergence of a phenomenon whereby the electorate focus on the head of the government rather than the government as a collective. Blair had much higher approval ratings than the Labour government as a whole, and in his first term whips often reminded MPs that they gained their place in the Commons by riding on their leader’s coat-tails. Another feature was Blair’s introduction of monthly Downing Street press conferences - a presidential-style move by a PM who spent little time in the House of Commons. Cameron has done the same and his personal popularity exceeded that of his party (although not to the same degree as Blair’s). Johnson has a highly personal style leadership style, centred around him as a charismatic leader who ‘delivers.’ Lord Finkelstein described this as his urge to become ‘Mayor of Britain’ – a reference to his time as London’s mayor and Johnson’s obsession with big infrastructure projects or eye catching events.

Answer 13

- The office of Prime Minister is too much for one person They possess collective oversight and may choose to take an active interest in particular areas of policy (e.g. Thatcher and local government finance, Blair and City Academies), but they lack time, institutional support, interest, or even knowledge to intervene in everything – Blair and Cameron both did this on the economy. - Some PMs can be blocked in key areas which impedes their exercise of power. Under Blair, Gordon Brown carved out a measure of autonomy hardly ever achieved by a minister. Certain departments were regarded as ‘Brown preserves’ - Any Prime Minister would be unwise to disregard Cabinet (especially so in a Coalition Government) They must keep some sort of balance politically in order to appease wings of the party. Blair was mindful of the need to keep John Prescott onside as a channel between himself and old Labour. Cameron obviously needed Nick Clegg on side at all times. Hence the need to ‘coalitionise all major decisions’. Some have referred to his style of government as a ‘dual Presidential model’ (although, interestingly, some put Osborne in the vice-presidential role rather than Clegg!). Theresa May kept a careful balance of Brexiteers and Remainers. It remains the case that resignations can cause untold damage. (A US President meanwhile is embarrassed by departures from his Cabinet, not potentially mortally wounded.) - The Prime Minister’s Office is no West Wing. Whilst there has been a growth in the Downing Street apparatus, little realistic comparison can be made between the resources and staff available to the Prime Minister and the Executive Office of the President. The number of presidential aides in the White House Office alone (i.e. the West Wing) is nearly 400. The number of personal staff available to the PM is closer to 30.

Answer 14

Michael Foley developed the theory of spatial leadership (based on his study of how US Presidents attempt to overcome the limited formal powers they have domestically) in order to explain how UK premiers have adapted and adopted techniques used by American presidents in order to overcome the constitutional limitations on their power. These tactics are: - Outsider: Blair presented himself as separate from Labour; - Heavy focus on media usage, and communication tools as part of a permanent campaign; - Individual dominance: using force of personality (‘populist outreach’) to intervene in departmental affairs, e.g. Blair’s personal involvement in health, schools, Northern Ireland. Cameron’s on ‘The Big Society’, the NHS, Education and foreign affairs.

Answer 15

- Patronage and Collective Responsibility The PM has the power to hire and fire ministers from his or her government, allowing them to command the loyalty of ambitious junior MPs who wish to become ministers. This will ensure they vote with the governments in key votes. Collective Responsibility also ensures loyalty from cabinet and junior ministers, as they risk dismissal if they speak out against the PM. This is known as the payroll vote. Sunak currently commands loyalty from Cabinet. - Strong Majority (Parliamentary dominance) When a Prime Minister enjoys a strong majority, they dominate all aspects of the legislative process in parliament, including the public Bill Committees and the final tallies for the vote at the 3rd reading stage. Thatcher only lost one vote on a bill during her time as from 1979 to 1990. Blair only lost two votes on bills in his time as PM, all after 2005. Johnson had a very healthy majority of 80; it is now . - Chief Foreign Policy maker The PM has inherited the Prerogative powers traditionally held by the monarch in the UK constitution. This essentially makes them the commander-in-chief of the UK armed forces, allowing to deploy the UK military anywhere around the world. This is evidenced by Thatcher’s engagement in the Falklands war in 1982, as well as Blair’s interventions in the 1990s. - Events (could be used on either side) A Prime Minister with a strong personality and a good media instinct can exploit events to enhance their own popularity and power. Blair’s popularity soared after he channelled the national mood of mourning after death of Princess Diana in 1997 – ‘She was the People’s princess.’ As of April 2020, public support for the government during the Coronavirus pandemic is at a new high. However, this may not have a lasting impact, and media scrutiny on the government’s handling of the crisis is now increasing. Partygate/Chris Pincher affair led to the downfall of Johnson in 2022.

Answer 16

- Lack of Party support If the PM has lost the support of his/her party in the House of Commons due to poor leadership, they lose the ability to effectively whip their MPs to support them in key votes, as the MPs become more willing to rebel. This is evident under Theresa May’s government from 2017 onwards on the issue of Brexit. - Weak Majority With a weak or non-existent majority in the Commons, PMs lose the ability to dominate the legislative process, and in extreme cases, lose the power to determine the legislative agenda, as happened to Theresa May in March 2019, when parliament voted to take control of the Brexit process. Since losing her majority in 2017, May had lost over 20 key votes in parliament by April 2019. - The Electorate (maybe influenced by foreign policy) Since the highly controversial decision to invade Iraq under Blair in 2003, the convention has been to hold a parliamentary vote on the use of UK armed forces, and parliament actually rejected bombing the Assad regime in Syria in 2013, showing this power is not exclusively held by the PM. This decision may have been influenced by the anti-intervention sentiment held by the electorate (also a legacy of Iraq) as the coalition did see a large number of MPs rebel in the issue. - Media image (influenced by negative handling of events) Harold Macmillan famously said that it was ‘events dear boy, events’ when asked by a journalist about what was most likely to blow a government off course. Theresa May’s bad mishandling of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in June 2017 badly damaged her already dwindling popularity with the electorate, making her seem out of touch. Brown’s ‘bigot-gate’ gaffe in 2010, badly damaged his media image. Partygate included many pictures of Johnson eating cake and holding glasses of beer, but it depended on the newspaper as to which viewpoint they took of it. However, such images have undeniably dented the image of Johnson.