Cabinet government consists of a collective executive where members share in decisions and are held to be collectively responsible. It is also the peak institution in a classified and centralised government system. The Prime Minister is the head of the cabinet and is more than the first among equals, but not a seperate executive taking all decisions and being held singly accountable for the government, like, for example, an American President.
In analysing the actual practice of the cabinet, one can say that it is inadequate for several reasons. The quantity of the government work vastly increased during the 20th century resulting in cabinets that were too large for meaningful discussions to take place. Ministers have therefore found that they are struggling to master their own sector of work and lack the time and information to make a beneficial contribution to the leading of government. According to political analyst Christopher Foster(1999) the cabinet is little more than an "executive with few or no executives"
The Prime Minister's power over cabinet ministers is strengthened by the fact that he/she is the core executive and can effectively 'hire and fire' members, although reshuffling is a more polite political term to use. 'Reshuffling the cabinet' has become an annual occurrence. Cabinet colleagues have to defend cabinet decisions in the public eye or they have to resign. Having the authority to guide the cabinet is one of the most important and significant responsibilities of a Prime Minister.
However, in recent times, responsibilities of the British Prime ministers have increased, detracting his/her focus away from cabinet duties. In the 1970's, Edward Heath's inolvement in the European Economic Community was then followed by involvement in the European union and the Commonwealth Summit. These became responsibilities, and took up an ever-increasing amount of the Prime Minister's time. European and Trans-Atlantic ministerial involvements became routine duties, and increased in the governments which followed Edward Heath. An example of these responsibilities in the current government is Tony Blair's involvement in the European Union and his regular visits to Washington. While these commitments may be important to British international relations and foreign affairs, perhaps it could be said that they are taking up so much time that they are becoming more important than running the cabinet, especially in Blair's Government.
Concerning foreign relations, Margaret Thatcher, however, had a 'Little Englander', anti European Sentiment. Her Euro Scepticism led to conflict with Europhiles such as Ken Clarke, former cabinet Minister Chris Patten, and Geoffrey Howe. Another example of a 'bust up is when in 1986, Michael Heseltine marched out of the cabinet and resigned on the grounds that Mrs Thatcher did not allow him to make his case in full cabinet for a European-backed rescue of the West Land Helicopter Company.
As well as these strong beliefs, her supreme sense of power and domination over the cabinet was illustrated perfectly when she entered the cabinet meeting only to say" I haven't got much tome today, only enough time to explode and have my way". This is a clear illustration of her self-righteous character which were only to cause harm for her and her party in the years to come. These characteristics and events proved to be detrimental to Thatcher's government. In eleven years of her regime, came with successes in difficult circumstances, such as the Falklands War and failures like the Poll Tax. However, it was her personality, her cabinet divisions and harsh policies that eventually led to her demise from power. It could be argued then that if she had had a more cabinet led government, her term in government would have been longer, although many ministers claimed she was simply 'passed her sell by date' when she left Downing Street in 1991. Events like these prove that good prime minister-cabinet relations are essential in ensuring long term stability within a government.
Determined not to follow the 'Thatcherite' triumphalist regime John Major wanted to use committees much less, have greater openness, and place greater emphasis on lenghthly cabinet debates. He wanted to have more cabinet democracy and less emphasis on the type of leadership Thatcher had become renowned for. As Thatcher had no room for Europhiles in her cabinet, Major wanted a greater mix of opinions in order to avoid the unrest that preceded his reign. This strategy to begin with seemed to go according to plan and his cabinet was labelled the 'cabinet of chums', but unfortunately due to ministerial fallouts became famously known as the 'cabinet half full of bastards'. He used bilaterals - informal meetings between the PM and his advisers in order to talk about policy decisions - which possibly detracts the importance from the whole cabinet process. The desire to have a more cabinet led government unfortunately did not materialise however, and Tony Blair, who has become known for his presidential characteristics, succeeded Major.
Despite Tony Blair's success as a media figurehead, behind the scenes, his cabinet system has been subject to great controversy since his party victory in the 1997 General Election. It has been argued that his cabinet management does not allow enough ideological representation, and to a certain extent this is true. For instance he was asked if he ran a dictatorial Napoleonic-style government, he replied "you are either a strong prime minister, in which you are a control freak, or you are a weak prime minister, in which you are weak really, and I think I know which I would like to be accused of".
Another important issue in relation to the cabinet is the number of appointees who have been dismissed by Blair. In twenty months he has lost twenty initial delegates, three of those by dismissal and two by calamity. Peter Mandelson only lasted five months in office, and it is these instances of discord, which are downgrading the value of the cabinets an official policy making body. Some ministers must wonder, must wonder if all the hard work, scheming and sacrifice has been worth it in the end.
This leads to the question whether or not Blair is quasi-presidential. Blair has always been an admirer of Thatcher, who is widely regarded as he most presidential prime minister of last century. To a certain degree, he shows certain forms of leadership. The fact that the strong willed Mrs Thatcher said of him "that young man is getting terribly bossy" shows how strong a political personality he has. A presidential leader wants to get on with his job and recently Blair indicated that he wanted less time consuming obstacles, by reducing the time in which ordinary MPs could voice their opinions in Prime Ministers Question Time.
More concerning to the democratic role of the cabinet, is the fact that since 1997 when Labour came into power, the government has expanded its number of special advisers from 38 to 81. Blair has established two additional bodies, the Strategic Communications Unit and the Research and Information Unit. Political Spin Doctors are stealing management precedence over the traditionally apolitical civil service. This trend is becoming increasingly indicative of the diminishing role of the cabinet according to the former secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, who claimed "cabinet government is dead"
The role of the cabinet is diminishing through modern, autocratic political regimes. The lesser reliance on the Cabinet, has quite possibly to do with the increased number of responsibilities, therefore more dependence is placed on special advisors. It could also be partially to do with the Prime Minister's will to press ahead with his plans and avoid policy confrontation with 'Old Labour' ministers. In conclusion it is true to say that the current British political regime is 'prime ministerial' because it is dominated more by the will and aims of Tony Blair, than by the philosophical contribution of the Cabinet.
References/Bibliography:
Foster, C., 1999. The End of Cabinet Government? PMPA.. 1999
Budge, I., Crewe, I., Mckay, D., Newton, K., 2001, The New British Politics(Second Edition). Longman 2001, p202-225
BBC News Online, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/790391.stm, Wednesday, 14 June, 2000
Uden, G., Editor( specific author unknown) Longman Illustrated Encyclopedia of World History, Peerage Books, revised edition, 1985, p977
Feiling, Keith. The History of England, Macmillian & Co Ltd, 1959. p789
