Cabinet System in the UK - Assignment Example

Discuss the proposition that the United Kingdom is governed not by the Cabinet but by the Prime Minister. Does the position, as you assess it to be, present any problems or potential problems? NOTE – the client has specifically asked that this piece have a wordcount of 2000 or less and this came to only 7 pages. The United Kingdom may be said to have a Cabinet government (McEldowney, 2002, pg 113). Traditionally, the executive powers of government are exercised by or on behalf of Ministers of the Crown who are members of the Cabinet. In 1867 Bagehot identified the Prime Minster as being at the head of the ‘efficient’ part of the Constitution, that is, the Cabinet (cited in McEldowney 2002 pg 112-113). Historically then, the Cabinet would meet as one to make important decisions as to policy and it has been described by Lord Haldane in 1917 as the ‘mainspring of all the mechanism of Government’ and the place where policy is finally determined before being laid before parliament, the supreme controller of the execution of policy approved by Parliament, and the coordinator of the work of the various departments of state (quoted in Pollard et al 2007 pg 140). However, in more modern times, particularly since the Second World War, academics have suggested that power has increasingly become vested in the Prime Minister (Pollard et al 2007 pg 140).This is in contrast with the more traditional view of the Prime Minister being merely the head of the Cabinet and more towards a ‘presidential’ style of governance. It has been argued that the notion of the Prime Minister as ‘first among equals’ is no longer applicable, as the Prime Minister takes more and more decisions without or at least with substantially reduced cabinet involvement (Pollard et al 2007 pg 140). For example, it is said that the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was made between the Prime Minister and a small number of ministers, rather than a full Cabinet decision being made (Bradley and Ewing, 2007, pg 272). Seldon has summarised the ways in which the Cabinet System changed in the 20th Century. He states that it moved from being the sole decision maker to merely one of them, with committees increasingly making policies and Prime Ministers choosing to take decisions alone (Seldon in Bogdanor (ed) 2003 ch 4). This may be somewhat understandable given the increased number of issues to be decided upon and the complexity of ministerial department over that period (Steyn 2006). Every Prime Minister will have a different style of leadership depending on his personality. However, modern Prime Ministers are in a position, if they wish, to exercise a dominant influence over the Cabinet. Bradley and Ewing provide five examples of how the Prime Minister is in a position of much greater power compared with the Cabinet (2007 pg 271-273). Firstly, it is the Prime Minister who makes appointments to ministerial office and therefore the Cabinet. He may ask them to resign, recommend that they be dismissed, or move them between offices. There is therefore always the possibility that a disagreement between a Cabinet member and the Prime Minister may lead to that Cabinet minister having to resign. The Prime Minister also determines the precedence of the Cabinet. It may therefore be thought that those people who are more supportive of the Prime Minister and his views may expect to do well in Government faster than others. Secondly, the Prime Minister controls how the tasks of government should be allocated to departments and determines which departments should be created, amalgamated or abolished. Furthermore, the Prime Minister may take a special interest in different areas from time to time, and may make policies with the ministers responsible for the relevant departments without the rest of the Cabinet. Thirdly, the Prime Minister controls Cabinet discussions by presiding at Cabinet Meetings. Bradley and Ewing suggest (pg 272) that this control is achieved by setting the order of business, deciding which items are to be discussed and which are to be delayed and by taking the sense of the meeting rather than working on a vote system. Fourthly, the doctrine of collective responsibility reinforces the powers of the Prime Minister. This occurs when ministers must support government policy and defend it even if they disagree. For example, the decision to transfer the responsibility of setting interest rates to the Bank of England in 1997 was thought to have been taken by the Prime Minister and a few colleagues. Yet all of the Government, and particularly the Cabinet, have to support this decision as if it were there own. Finally, it is said that the Prime Minister has a more regular opportunity to present and defend the government’s policies in Parliament than other ministers. The Prime Minister also controls communications to the press. However, the power of the Prime Minister should not be exaggerated. A Prime Minister who loses the confidence of Government and particularly the Cabinet will be very vulnerable, even where he or she is the popular choice of the public. As Brazier (quoted in Bradley and Ewing, 2007, pg 271) said following the removal from office of Margaret Thatcher, “a Prime Minister’s main political strength comes from the Cabinet and… from the parliamentary party”. The Cabinet can also exercise control over the Prime Minister in more subtle ways. For example the presence of leaks may damage the Prime Minister’s reputation or show that members of the Cabinet are unhappy with decisions. Collective resignations will also have an effect on the reputation of the Prime Minister and will bring issues of disagreement to public awareness and media attention. The threat of being ‘sacked’ by the Prime Minister is also not as great as may at first be thought because too many losses in this way will give the impression of a divided government and these ministers may also go on to become forces of discontent amongst the backbenchers. The Cabinet may therefore have some success in persuading the Prime Minister to change his or her mind on particular issues. For example, in 1969 the Cabinet persuaded Harold Wilson to abandon plans to place additional legal restraints on the activities of trade unions (Carroll, 2007, pg 235). Over the years, successive Prime Ministers have, as well as reducing the authority of the Cabinet, increased the powers and number of other decision making bodies. For example Lord Callaghan enlisted the support of the Central Policy Review Staff, the Policy Unit, Private Office, Political Office, the Press Office and the Cabinet Office. Margaret Thatcher then went on to disband the Central Policy Review staff and instead strengthen her own ‘in house’ Policy Unit. The number of Private Secretaries also increased, and they were personally selected by the Prime Minister as aides. This trend continued under Tony Blair with more policy units and advisers being created (Pollard et al 2007, pg 141). In 2006 the Cabinet Office had the following tasks: supporting the Prime Minister in defining and delivering the government’s objectives; supporting the Cabinet in driving forward the coherence, quality, and delivery of policy on a cross departmental basis, and; strengthening the Civil Service in ensuring that it is organised effectively and has appropriate skill, values and leadership to deliver the objectives of government (Pollard et al 2007 pg 141). From the first of these objectives it may be seen that the Cabinet Office was in some ways replacing the Cabinet themselves in a decision and policy making capacity. This may not immediately be apparent as a problem. However, unlike the Cabinet, the Cabinet Office is part of the Civil Service and therefore is not elected. The democratic checks and balances present in terms of ministers are therefore not present in the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office will be required to support the Prime Minister, away from the Cabinet, in his decision making. They have no requirement to reflect the views of the electorate and therefore are free to support the Prime Minister without any need to attempt to change his mind in line with the electorate (apart from in order to protect his or her position). Furthermore, the independent nature of the Civil Service has changed in recent times. A particular example of this is the nature of ‘special advisers’ who are chosen by the Prime Minister as his personal aides. These people are generally highly political and protective of the Prime Minister. In this way, one of the checks on Prime Ministerial power has been substantially weakened (Pollard et al 2007 pg 143). Another potential problem with a more presidential system of governance is that the nature of ministerial collective responsibility, as discussed above, may mean that Cabinet ministers are required to defend and adhere to policy decisions which not only do they disagree with, but the decisions to which they were not even involved. The ‘Westland Affair’ provides an example of this (Pollard et al 2007 pg 148). This public affair emerged from a disagreement between Cabinet ministers. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry favoured the purchase of the Westland helicopter company by the American Sikorsky Company. However, the Secretary of State for Defence favoured a rescue bid from a European consortium. The problem arose when it was discovered that the decision had been made prior to any Cabinet meeting. This meant that the Secretary of State for Defence was not given the opportunity of discussing the potential decision or even bringing it to the agenda before the decision was made. The Secretary of State was then required to adhere to the doctrine of collective responsibility and support the decision. This proved to be too much and he later resigned following several leaks and damage to the government. Moreover, it is a matter of common sense that too much power vested in one person is likely to lead to difficulties. As the old saying goes: ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Decisions taken by Mr Blair towards the end of his premiership were often unpopular with the general public. Yet Mr Blair focused on doing what he believed to be ‘right’. This did not take account of the electorate’s view of what they thought was ‘right’. It may be thought that this carrying on in the face of unpopularity was a sign that Mr Blair thought himself above the conventions of democracy and subject only to his views and authority. Yet the change in the role of the Cabinet and its relationship with the Prime Minister is not thought by commentators to have been dictated solely by the Prime Ministers of past and present. Indeed, Pollard et al (2007 pg 145) list several factors including the influence of the EU and the pressures of complex government, often requiring expert opinion not contained within the Cabinet itself, and media interest and influence. Of course though, the personality of strong viewed Prime Ministers such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair cannot be completely removed from this process either. In conclusion, in more modern times the office of Prime Minister has tended to develop more towards a ‘presidential’ than a Cabinet form of governance. This would lead commentators to believe that the UK is governed not by the Cabinet but by, effectively, the Prime Minister alone. This is an oversimplification of the situation. More complex government has required more people, in particular the Civil Service, to be active in policy decisions. It has also necessitated Cabinet ministers becoming more specialised and less involved in all of the wide range of policy decisions. Furthermore, although the Prime Minister now exercises a more powerful role than in previous times, the Prime Minister still relies heavily on the support of the Cabinet. If the Prime Minister were to take decisions which ultimately were unpopular with the Cabinet then his position would be weakened and he may even be forced out by the very Cabinet he issues control over. Bibliography Carroll, A., (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, 4th Edition Harlow: Pearson McEldowney, J. (2002), Public Law, 3rd Edition London: Sweet & Maxwell Pollard, D., Parpworth, N. and Hughes, D., (2007) Constitutional and Administrative Law: Text with Materials, 4th Edition Oxford: Oxford University Press Seldon, A. in Bogdanor, V. (ed), (2003), The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press Steyn, Lord, (2006), “Democracy, the rule of law and the role of judges”, EHRLR 243 Read More