The Prime Minister has the power to appoint and dismiss all government ministers under their own digression. This therefore allows the PM to have total control over who is and who isn’t within his cabinet. This also gives the ability for the PM to place like-minded views within the cabinet to ensure an easy dominance. Whilst choosing like minded people within the PM’s cabinet, the PM also chooses ‘enemies’ this allows the PM again total domination because whilst they are in his cabinet they have collective responsibility to abide by, not allowing them to go against the PM’s views and decisions. For example. Within Blair’s cabinet is Gordon Brown who if he wasn’t within the Cabinet he could potentially is the ultimate downfall to Tony Blair and New Labour. However although Ministers have to stand by collective responsibility this however doesn’t mean they should do so. For example; The experience of Thatcher, who was removed by party leader, prime minister and of John Major, whose power was very limited by powerful forces in the cabinet as in theory the PM is only Primus Inter Pares.
Cabinet meetings have now become less frequent and shorter duration. This therefore suggest that the cabinet has lost its official importance and the growing strength of the PM. Tony Blair’s cabinet is now seen to appear at a reporting body in which he makes all the decisions, unlike Majors cabinet who were seen as a debating forum and Thatcher’s whose was a last court of appeal. This therefore shows the rising dominance of PMS through the decades. For example. Former ministers report very few important decisions are made in cabinet. Although the cabinet is seen as in-significant Tony Blair has a ‘kitchen cabinet’ that are a select few closes ministers who help within decision making. So therefore this still does support the idea of in reality we do still have cabinet government because Blair is reliant on his ‘kitchen cabinet’ members.
Although both Thatcher and Blair have gained their control and power through ‘formal powers’ there are still many other factors into their overall power. This depends on many variables such as; personal popularity, political ability and economic stability ‘events dear boy, events’. For a PM to become powerful they need to all of these factors to remain powerful and strong within government. For example; Thatcher’s economic conditions for example; the Falklands war allowed Thatcher to become popular leading to the consent of the demos to remain as an absolute premier within government. However in John Majors case these external powers led to his downfall as the economy was bad, he allowed the cabinet complete control, which les to bad decision making and loss of public popularity which in conjunction didn’t lead to consent. Another primary external factor would be the party majority, as this determines the support you can gain from your party and cabinet in decision-making. It allows legislation to be pushed through a lot easier giving strong government. Ideological commitment within the party and cabinet also allows greater control over the cabinet and decision-making. For example; Thatcher had the support of her party and cabinet through the pay role vote as they new she was popular and towed the party line.
To a greater extent does the PM have ultimate power, for the fact that the PM has ultimate power to with hold political manipulation and use it for there own personal popularity and success. For example, the PM has the power of appointing and dismissing all ministers. This allows him great control over his cabinet due to collective responsibility and in some instances the ‘pay-role’ vote. The PM also has informal powers however these do vary according to political circumstances. They are the chief policy-maker, parliamentary leader, key spokesmen for the government and control over the economy. These are all a result of the PMs office which has now gained greater control over policy and co-ordination, which is now referred to as the ‘Power House of Government’ as everything centralises around the PM and no: 10 downing street. However unlike Ministers and the Cabinet who have ‘permanence’ this means they possess long-term power rather then the Prime Minster who power is limited to short term. This is shown through the theory of George Jones ‘power is like an elastic band’ meaning like Thatcher and in the future Blair that there strength may be there weakness and lead to their downfall. In theory the PM is most power however H Macmillan ‘events dear boy events’ shows us that in the reality the people hold ultimate power, because unless the PM has consent from the demos govern they do not have the primary power. For example; Blair’s downfall was the fact that he has announced his future resignation, which has now therefore limited his cabinets support in which they may now support the future PM ie. Gordon Brown. This now means party unity has now been lost.
