As the executive

Politics – The Executive
What are the main functions of the Prime
Minister?
• The PM is head of the governing party – PR chief
• He / she represents the country on the international stage (e.g.
at the G8 summit, meetings of the European council, etc.) – chief
diplomat
• The PM is head of the executive – chief legislator
• Used to set the date of the General Election – now needs 2/3
majority in Commons
• Appoints and dismisses cabinet members, chairs meetings
• Appoints peers, judges, bishops etc.
• Constituency responsibility
• There is a degree of flexibility over what functions the PM may /
may not perform. As Sir William Harcourt once remarked, “the
office of PM is what its holder chooses and is able to make of it”

What are the main powers of the Prime Minister?
• His / her most important power is the ability to set the date of the
General Election
• He / she holds considerable powers of patronage (e.g. appoints life
peers to the House of Lords, the Head of the BBC, etc.). In terms of the
executive, he / she can also appoint (and dismiss) members of the
Cabinet, and decides who will sit on cabinet committees
• Sets the agenda for Cabinet meetings
• Can withdraw the party whip from backbench MPs in his / her own
party, as John Major did to 8 Eurosceptic rebels during the mid-1990s
• Can also make decisions that are based upon royal prerogative (e.g. to
declare war)
• Holds emergency powers under the Emergency Powers Act

What are the sources of Prime Ministerial power?
• Most political commentators accept that the power of the PM has
increased in recent years. This is due to several factors;
• A growing tendency for the media to focus primarily upon the PM,
rather than the Cabinet or other members of the governing party
• The PM acts as head of the country on the world stage
• Under Blair the impact of the Cabinet has been was marginalised
• The PM holds significant powers of patronage
• Support from Parliament can prove an important factor. For example
until November 2005, Blair had not lost a single vote in the House of
Commons
• Arguably the most important factor is public support. Whilst Blair has
won three elections as Labour leader, some in the party have claimed
that Labour’s victory in 2005 was achieved in spite of Blair

What limitations are there upon the power of the Prime
Minister?
• The biggest constraint is the electorate, as the PM can ultimately be
removed by the voters during a General Election. This last occurred in
1997 with John Major. The governing party must also seek re-election
at some stage, and as such, the PM needs to retain a degree of public
support for his / her party
• The party itself. In November 2005 Blair failed to gain sufficient support
for the 90-day detention of terrorist suspects. More dramatically, the
PM can be dismissed by their own party (e.g. Thatcher in 1990). Party
divisions can also weaken the power of a PM, as in the case of John
Major during the 1990s
• Policy failures can greatly weaken the position of a PM, as with Blair’s
handling of the fuel crisis issue in 2000

Limitations on the power of the Prime Minister continued
…
• Parliament can call a vote of no confidence at any time, and if the PM’s
party loses the vote, a General Election must be held. The last time this
occurred was in 1979
• International organisations such as the European Union
• The media. For example, Blair has been reluctant to call a referendum
on Britain’s possible membership of the € due to the power of the
Murdoch-owned press
• The Cabinet can also limit the power of the PM. Blair’s authority within
Cabinet has been undermined by Gordon Brown and his ministerial
supporters. A PM must also be careful as to how he/she uses the
powers of patronage. After MacMillan sacked 7 cabinet ministers in one
day, his power and authority never really recovered
• “Events, dear boy” (Harold MacMillan), such as the Iraq war
• Keep in mind the fact that in any democracy, the power of all elected
politicians is constrained to a greater or lesser extent

On what basis does a prime minister appoint his / her
Cabinet? (1)
• Mainly from MPs in the governing party. However, some ministers
derive from the House of Lords, such as the Lord Chancellor
• A PM appoints ministers in order to reward loyalty (e.g. David Blunkett),
or to promote those who show potential (e.g. David Milliband)
• A Cabinet must also reflect different strands of opinion within the PM’s
party. As such, there are both Brownites and Blairites in the present
Cabinet
• A minister must also be talented and hard-working, and possess a
good media profile. This latter point is very important due to 24-7 media
coverage
• In addition, some politicians are much too important to be left out of the
Cabinet (e.g. Brown)

On what basis does a prime minister appoint his / her
Cabinet? (2)
• In the case of the Labour party, Blair had to choose from
those elected to the party’s National Executive Committee
when he first came to power in 1997. A Conservative PM
faces no such party restriction
• A PM may at times reshuffle the Cabinet in order to re-
assert his authority, as Blair tried to do in April 2006. During
a reshuffle, he / she might replace disloyal or ineffective
ministers, or those who might threaten his own position

Why might a minister resign? (1)
• A serious error of judgement (e.g. In 1982, Lord Carrington
resigned over his failure to prevent the Falklands war)
• Health problems (as with Mo Mowlam in 2000)
• They disagree with government policy and cannot accept
CMR (e.g. Robin Cook and Clare Short over the Iraq war)
• Because they gained another job (e.g. In the mid-1980s
Leon Brittan left Mrs. Thatcher’s Cabinet in order to
become a Commissioner in the EU)
• Financial or legal irregularities (e.g. Jeffrey Archer)
• Sexual / personal misconduct. This was common during
the latter years of the John Major government

Why might a minister resign? (2)
• The media can place pressure upon a minister to resign, as
with Stephen Byers when he was Transport Secretary in
2002
• Cannot cope with the demands of the position (e.g. Estelle
Morris admitted that she was “not up to the job of
Education Secretary”)
• Abuse of power, as was the case with David Blunkett in
2005
• A clash of interests, often due to a business contact
• Misleading the House of Commons (e.g. Jonathon Aitken)
• “To spend more time with their family” - which is often a
cover for other reasons that he / she may not wish to make
public

How is the government held to account?
• By the media
• During PM’s Question Time, and Ministerial Question Time
• Select Committees (e.g. a report commissioned in 2006 criticised the
Government’s Tax Credits scheme) and Standing Committees, who consider
each parliamentary Bill on a line by line basis
• Opposition Days, where the opposition parties call for a debate to be held.
Inevitably, an opposition party will tend to focus upon a negative aspect of the
government’s record in office
• By the government’s own party. Labour backbench MPs have become much
more critical of the government since the 2001 Election, particularly over the
Iraq war and education reforms
• By the courts, who can rule that a minister has acted ‘ultra vires’ (or beyond
his/her powers)
• By the House of Lords. In recent years the Lords has taken a more critical
stance over government policy, particularly over the issue of civil liberties
• On the day of the General Election, when the people ultimately decide the fate
of the Government

What are the functions of the Cabinet?
• The main function of Cabinet is to co-ordinate and implement
government policy
• To discuss and debate issues facing the government
• To deal with events relating to the work of the executive, such as the
Agricultural minister (and the PM) over the foot-and-mouth crisis in
2001
• To reach a consensus of opinion, and in doing so, adopt a common
position. Disputes between ministers and departments can also be
resolved in Cabinet meetings
• To provide a link between the three branches of government, which is
due to the fusion of powers inherent within the British political system
• The Cabinet also sets the government’s agenda (although this function
is now largely determined by the PM)

What are the main functions of a Cabinet minister?
• Cabinet ministers should be willing to accept collective responsibility for
the Government’s policies and decisions, and individual ministerial
responsibility for their own (and their Department’s) actions. However
they are merely conventions, and have often been ignored in recent
years
• To decide, in consultation with his / her colleagues, how government
policy should be implemented
• To represent the Government, and the interests of his / her Department
• To be held accountable for their decisions – which is related to the
convention of individual ministerial responsibility
• To consider the advice of civil servants and pressure groups, and those
views expressed in Parliament

What is cabinet government?
• Traditionally, the UK executive was dominated by cabinet. The PM was
merely “first among equals”
• In the late 1960s, a Labour minister called Richard Crossman argued
that cabinet government had been replaced by Prime Ministerial
government
• It is undoubtedly the case that the importance of cabinet has declined
since the 1960s. However, the cabinet can still exert influence over the
PM, as was the case with John Major between 1992 and 1997
• Support for the PM in Cabinet can also prove decisive, as he / she can
be undermined by rival ministers such as Gordon Brown. Tony Blair
has also lost key allies from his Cabinet such as David Blunkett and
Estelle Morris, which has, to some extent, weakened his power and
authority

What is prime ministerial government?
• Prime Ministerial government suggests that the power of
the PM is such that he/she now dominates the government.
This argument is based on the view that the power of the
PM has increased significantly in recent years
• Both Thatcher and Blair have been described as acting like
“elected dictators” (e.g. Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq
was taken without full Cabinet / party discussion). Both
Blair and Thatcher also marginalised the position of
Cabinet
• Tony Blair has shown a preference for a “sofa-style form of
government”, where ministers are invited by the PM for
informal talks on a range of issues, as opposed to
discussions with the cabinet as a whole

Prime ministerial government continued …
• As many people vote on the basis of a party’s leader, the
PM is considerably more influential in terms of voting
behaviour than the Cabinet, which in turn strengthens his /
her position. The existence of the PM’s Office also
strengthens the power of the PM
• A great deal depends upon;
– The political authority of the Prime Minister
– The size of the government’s majority
• Also keep in mind that PMs have always taken important
decisions without full Cabinet discussion. For example,
Clement Attlee decided that Britain would possess an
atomic bomb after consultation with a small group of
colleagues

What is Presidential government?
• Presidential government suggests that the PM holds a similar degree
of power and authority as the US President
• The concept of Presidential government derives from the work of
Stephen Foley (and endorsed by the former Cabinet minister Mo
Mowlam). Foley argued that presidential government exists because of
the media’s focus upon the PM at the expense of other Cabinet
colleagues
• Foley’s argument is also based upon the willingness of the PM to
appeal directly to the public via the media, rather than consultation with
the Cabinet, Parliament, or even their own party
• Blair is also spending less time in Parliament than previous PMs

Presidential government continued …
• Blair has often attempted to act ‘above’ party politics in a style similar to
a US President. For instance, over the issue of Iraq Tony Blair ignored
his own party and public opinion and acted on behalf of what he saw as
the national interest
• Blair tends to consult with advisors, rather than the Cabinet as a
collective. This method of working is very similar to a US President
• The impression of presidential government is strengthened by Blair’s
willingness to adopt a highly active role within international relations,
often in partnership with US President George Bush
• However, unlike a US President, the PM is not Head of state, has to
face PMQs and faces no term limits. Moreover the UK has a fusion of
powers, whereas the US system is based upon a separation of powers

Collective ministerial responsibility (CMR)
• “all ministers are representatives of the government, and as
such, they should maintain a common policy position, at
least in public”
• CMR is a convention (or unwritten rule) that forms part of
the UK’s Constitution
• In the case of CMR, a great deal depends on the power
and authority of the PM. For instance, Tony Blair has found
it much more difficult to maintain unity within the Cabinet
since the 2005 Election
• Some PMs have also found it very difficult to maintain CMR
due to divisions within the Cabinet, as was the case with
the Conservative party between 1992 and 1997 over the
issue of Europe

Individual ministerial responsibility (IMR)
• “A Cabinet minister is held to account for the performance
of his/her department, and his/her own personal actions.”
For example in 1998, the Welsh Secretary Ron Davies
resigned over what he called “a moment of madness” in
Clapham Common
• IMR is a Cabinet convention, and is closely linked to the
concept of accountability. For example in 2005, David
Blunkett was forced to resign over a visa he obtained for
his lover’s nanny whilst he was Home Secretary
• However, IMR can also be ignored (e.g. in 2005, the then
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly refused to resign over the
paedophiles in schools scandal)

How important is IMR?
• In recent years, the trend has been towards ministers
ignoring the convention of IMR. For example, both Tessa
Jowell and John Prescott have been accused of ignoring
the ministerial code of conduct
• A great deal depends upon the degree of “political capital”
held by the minister in question. The support of the PM is
also crucial. Ministers who hold the confidence of the PM
will usually survive

The Civil Service
• The civil service is (in theory) both impartial, and neutral. In other
words, they must not show bias towards any political party, and unlike
the United States, the appointment of civil servants in the UK is not
based upon political affiliation. Moreover civil servants are (in theory)
‘free’ from undue ministerial influence
• Civil servants remain in their job when a government loses a General
Election. As such, they cannot be immediately dismissed by an
incoming government
• Civil servants offer advice to ministers, but it is ministers who ultimately
decide
• Civil servants are unelected and therefore unaccountable
• Many would argue that the civil service forms part of the UK’s
executive, along with the PM and Cabinet

What is the relationship between civil servants and
ministers? (1)
• In theory civil servants advise, and ministers decide.
However, civil servants can exert undue influence because
they hold knowledge and expertise in a particular area,
whereas an inexperienced Cabinet minister may have little
knowledge over how a Department works. In political
terminology, this is known as a minister “going native”
• Civil servants have been accused of pursuing their own
agenda, which is often characterised by a reluctance to
change (i.e. conservative with a small ‘c’)
• Civil servants are supposed to be impartial and neutral, and
therefore show no bias toward a political party or ideology.
However, both left-wing and right-wing ministers have
criticised the civil service for “pigeonholing” controversial
proposals

What is the relationship between civil servants and
ministers? (2)
• Civil servants take a long – term view (because they are
permanent), whereas ministers tend to take a short – term
view based on party / electoral considerations (because
they are only in their post for an average of 2 years). There
is, therefore, the potential for conflict between a minister
and his/her civil servants
• Both Thatcher and Blair were accused of ‘politicising’ the
civil service by holding a great deal of influence over key
appointments. The charge of politicising the civil service is
more relevant when a party has been in power for some
length of time
• Perhaps the key difference is that ministers are ultimately
accountable, whereas civil servants are not

As the executive

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to As the executive

Similar to As the executive (17)

More from aquinaspolitics

More from aquinaspolitics (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (9)

As the executive