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

News & Politics

As the executive