Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PM & Cabinet - Coggle Diagram

- - - - However, this doesn't always work to the benefit of the PM:
        May wasn't skilled at media performance, and appeared boring in interviews
- - - - Close allies (i.e. long term close friends) --> Gordon Brown & Tony Blair became close as they were both elected to Parliament in 1983 and shared an office
      - 'Big beasts' --> Theresa May included Johnson in her Cabinet for this reason
      - Exceptional ability --> - David Miliband was a young member of Blair’s cabinet in 2006; nickname was ‘Brain’
      - Balancing the 'wings' of the party --> Cameron had to do this during coalition
      - Including rivals to ‘silence’ them by making them subject to collective responsibility --> - Johnson included Sajid Javid and Jacob Rees-Mogg in his Cabinet in July 2019 despite both having a considerable following in the Party
      - Socially balanced Cabinet --> May made sure she appointed women to top jobs
- - - - Power exercised "on behalf" of the monarch by the PM
        They don't require permission of Parliament
        They've existed for a long period of time, so they are traditional
        Allows PM to do stuff like appointing ministers, dissolve & recall Parliament, declare war, control workings of civil service, etc.
    - - Strengthens PMs as they can:
        They can control political careers --> keeps ministers and backbenchers loyal
        They can promote politicians loyal to them (both ideologically and personally) --> rivals can be kept out of government
        
        Examples include:
        Thatcher - consoidated her position as PM in 1983 and transformed her Cabinet from one full of 'wets' to one where each of the main economic posts were in the hands of 'drys'
        May - 2016 reshuffle told colleagues she wasn't afraid to be ruthless
      - Limitations - hiring and firing means PMs must consider:
        Keeping both wings of the party happy; ideologically balanced Cabinet is necessary
        Picking top talents from the party to be successful
        Seeking a social balance in Cabinet (women, LGBT, etc.)
        'Big Beasts' may be less dangerous inside gov. as they're subjected to collective responsibility
- - - - YES:
        CMR is still a key element of gov. unity and Cabinet is still held to account through it --> i.e. in 2019 under PM Johnson, Amber Rudd resigned for the second time as she couldn’t ‘stand by when loyal MPs were purged’ and over a no deal Brexit
        Collective responsibility is flexible as it can be temporarily suspended for issues that transcend party politics --> i.e. during 2016 EU ref., Cameron suspended CMR so ministers could campaign for either side
        Individual ministerial responsibility → important as it ensures Ministers are fully focused on the work and actions of their department
        Individual ministerial responsibility also ensures that those involved at the top of public life maintain the correct quality of behaviour
        Ministers take responsibility by being answerable and accountable for the work of their departments → only when they are clearly personally to blame will they resign
      - NO:
        CMR has come under great strain with ministers disagreeing but not resigning --> i.e. 2018-19, May had many ministers doing this, destablising her gov.; Chancellor Hammond and Brexit Secretary Davis publicly challenged each other regarding the ending of free movement, but neither resigned
        The fact it can be set aside has led some to arguing that it’s a rule enforced by PMs when it suits them and discarded when it doesn’t --> i.e. when the PM could not make their Cabinet support them; CMR isn't effective at making ministers support gov. policy
        Individual ministerial responsibility → merely a convention, and not legally binding, so their application is inconsistently applied, so they don’t result in securing the accountability of ministers
        Individual ministerial responsibility is clear, but ministers seek to shift the blame to others to deflect bad publicity
- - - - Power is 'collective, not personal' --> power located in Cabinet, not with the PM; all ministers are equal
      - Heywood --> this model is outdated as it's underpinned by convention of collective responsibility (helps ensure cabinet unity)
      - No PM can survive if they lose Cabinet support
    - - Post-war era, belief of Cabinet gov. being replaced by Prime Ministerial gov. was a thing --> the PM dominates both Parliament and the executive; cabinet is simply a body of support and advice for the PM, reflecting growth of PM power
    - - Since 1990s, factors have made the UK PM appear more as presidents, emphasising dominance of PM over Cabinet (similar to PM gov. model):
        
        Growth of ‘spatial leadership’ --> PMs distance themselves from their parties by presenting themselves as ‘outsiders’ or developing a personal ideological stance (i.e. Thatcherism)
        
        Tendency towards ‘populist outreach’ --> PMs ‘reach out’ directly to the public by claiming to articulate their deepest hopes and fears, such as PMs talking directly to the public in major events
        
        Personalised election campaigns
        
        Personal mandates --> PMs claim a mandate on basis of their electoral success, so they can take full control of gov. policy
        
        Wider use of special advisers (spads, such as Alastair Campbell, during Blair years, who was known as the real Deputy PM)
        
        Strengthened Cabinet Office --> size and resources of Cabinet have grown; it's now a small-scale PM department responsible for running Whitehall
      - PMs aren't really like presidents as they only resemble them more; they don't act as a president
        
        UK doesn't have a constitutional separation of power between the executive and legislature like the US does
        
        US presidents don’t share executive power with their cabinets
        
        PMs are still elected due to Parliamentary elections, not by a separate electoral process like the US
  - - - Cabinet needs to approve all policies
      - Some key decisions are still made by Cabinet (i.e. 2017 snap election)
      - Big Beasts are hard to silence (i.e. Gordon Brown under Blair was very important and influential)
      - No PM can survive without the support of their Cabinet (i.e. Thatcher removed by her Cabinet)
      - Patronage powers must be handled carefully to maintain authority (i.e. poor reshuffles can lead to party disharmony, seen with May)
      - Cabinet is involved in management of emergencies (via COBRA, and was used during Covid pandemic)
    - - Cabinet is a rubber stamp for decisions made elsewhere and they meet for less time than in the past --> Spads make PMs less reliant on Cabinet
      - PMs can manipulate Cabinet by the use of bilateral meetings (a meet between PM and one other Cabinet minister to discuss and sometimes decide policy) with ministers
      - PM controls workings of Cabinet and can use collective ministersial responsibility effectively
      - A dominant PM is usually deferred to by their Cabinet --> PM with a united Cabinet is very powerful, so the PMs ability to dominate Cabinet results in a Cabinet ideologically united behind them
      - PM has significant powers of patronage, promoting things like loyalty and a Cabinet ideologically sympathetic to them
      - PMs can use cabinet committees to control outcomes in normal times and emergencies