The principle of collective responsibility underpins the system of Cabinet government. It reflects democratic principle: the Legislature expresses its confidence in the whole of the Core Executive, rather than in individual ministers. Similarly, the PM, in acting on ministerial advice, needs to be confident that all ministers represent official government policy. In all areas of their work, therefore, ministers represent and implement government policy and, from that, we can conclude that it is a significant doctrine within the functioning of the Government. In a more recent context, CCR was best exemplified by the Cabinet’s willingness to accept the terms of the ‘bank bailout’ proposal made by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor and other senior economic advisors – if the remainder of the Cabinet had not backed such a plan, then it would have led to wish-washy economic leadership, resulting in a further loss of confidence and the subsequent deepening of the recession. Another example is that of Robin Cook who found his position as Leader of the House of Commons no longer justifiable after his public opposition to the Iraq War brought the leadership style and policy-making acumen of Tony Blair into question. His ensuing resignation damaged the public relations of the Government but also demonstrated that CCR was still alive and kicking in the Core Executive, given that he took responsibility for the failure of the Labour leadership to reason its way out of being committed to a war on false premise.
On the other hand, CCR has been lacking in many other vital and often necessary areas in recent years. There has been a marked increase in the power of the Prime Minister, to such an extent that people now question whether or not they believe a Presidential-esque leadership to be in operation – even though, constitutionally, the power of the PM is limited short of that. Tony Blair believed in a Government run under his personality and not one in which consensus played an influential role. Under his ideals, bi-laterals (tri-laterals also) took prominence over inter-departmental discussion at Cabinet meetings, which rarely lasted more than an hour regardless. Cabinet committees, informal meetings, task forces and strategy units who also discussed and actively tackled topics of their choosing, superseded conventional Cabinet meetings. In this respect, the doctrine has been completely ignored and been utterly dependent on the influence granted to it by the Prime Minister. It has a key role in the effective functioning of a Cabinet Government, however, in an administration led by a figure who feels this is obstructive to progress, it has little or no weight unless it can somehow change public opinion, force a vote of no confidence and the resignation of the entire governing party.
‘The Cabinet’s role in decision making has been marginalised in recent governments.’ Discuss. (25 marks)
Traditional theory dictates that the Cabinet is the dominant decision-making body within the Core Executive, where Ministers convene to co-ordinate the policy making of individual departments and thus the overall work of the Government. All senior ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister and they are all collectively delegated the power to direct the Government. Under the doctrine of a Cabinet government, all members have equal status – apart from the PM who has the recognised position of primus inter pares (first amongst equals). Recently, however, the collective power held by the Cabinet has weakened somewhat, especially under Blair and Thatcher, though this has largely depended on the leadership style preferred by the PM in office.
There are several predominant roles of the Cabinet which include: devising major policy (although this is often stated in the manifesto before election, priorities have to be made, legislative ideas converted into practice and contextual circumstances to be accounted for); addressing unforeseen major problems (such as the current H1N1 ‘swine flu’ outbreak); harmonising the actions of several departments (branches of the Government have to be able to co-operate and work together on mutually-affecting issues; disputes between senior members can also be aired in Cabinet meetings) and planning policy for the future, such as for defence, but often this is overlooked in order to deal with problems that are occurring at that moment in time.
In the post-war period, there has been a dramatic shift in the structural make-up of the Government and often this has meant that there has been less accommodation for the Cabinet in its theoretical capacity. Rather than presenting a proper forum for debate, it has been the case that since 1979, the main role for the Cabinet is to facilitate unity and collaboration between departments on policy and to decide on how these are to be implemented. Cabinet committees have become more significant in those 30 years, and time after time, they are the ones who actually formulate policy; after this, they submit their recommendations for policy proposal to the Cabinet who can either reject of accept their counsel – effectively making redundant the Cabinet’s power to devise power alone, and marginalising their role in decision-making within the Government. Furthermore, there have been cases where informal chats and meetings (where minutes were not recorded) which add to the evidence that collective decision-making is being lost to instances of unilateral decision making by the PM. Moreover, power is increasingly centralised around the Prime Minister and other senior ministers within the Cabinet which has been augmented by the ballooning powers of the Prime Minister’s Office which enables him or her to supervise the direction of Government strategy and to implement more and more plans from their own direction, circumventing the need for a Cabinet evaluation. The utilisation of media also has its impact; there’s a portrayal of the Prime Minister as the voice of the Government, so, when time comes that it is needed to give opinion, it is often the Prime Minister that is approached; they deal with this by giving the impression that not only are they in control of the Party, but of the Government as a whole. ‘Spin doctors’ such as Alistair Campbell - and more recently, Simon Lewis - facilitate the exposure of the Prime Minister and their perfectly-packaged opinions on strategy and policy, ensuring that he or she is presented in such a way to support this.
On the other hand, there is evidence that the Cabinet is although in a reduced capacity, not marginalised, but being streamlined in order to fit in with modern purpose. For example, taking major policy decisions has something that has precedent in Government since 1886 under the First Home Rule Bill, which presented by William Gladstone for consideration to the House of Commons, but was ultimately rejected by 341-311. Likewise, short cabinet meetings cannot be explicitly indicative of a Government that is being run like a dictatorship; two-day cabinet meetings similar to those under Harold Wilson would not be appropriate in the modern age where efficiency is needed in all respects. Additionally, there is little to criticise in the way that cabinet committees operate; they provide the Cabinet with useful, relevant and prudent ideas on subjects that been researched before being presented. Although it’s true that it presents the PM with a method in which to influence Cabinet decisions (because he or she often chairs important cmtts.), often this can play against them in the future when they need to look to the Cabinet for support in order to re-enforce their own positions – as was the case with Margaret Thatcher in 1990.
Given all that, it would appear that the Cabinet is not currently functioning to the extent that traditional understanding would have us think it should. I utterly agree with the statement that the role of the Cabinet in decision-making has been deeply marginalised within recent administrations, and with that, I accept that the influence of the Cabinet is wholly and comprehensively linked to the context of the personality of the Prime Minister ‘at the helm’. It is also true that Prime Ministerial power has acquired a new significance in recent years where they can forge decisions without the use of the Cabinet as a tool to manage or compass opinion. For instance, the EU has a significant function in top-level decision making insofar that it requires the divine attention of the Prime Minister alone, and not the Cabinet. As an informal ambassador for the United Kingdom, it is the responsibility of the PM to negotiate deals which secure: EU funding for the UK’s economy, EU partner countries’ assistance in the Afghan War et cetera and in order for him to do this, considerable autonomy has to be granted. The same is true for other meetings in the recent past, such as the G20 Meeting in London where the PM held high-level talks with other wealthy nations in order to establish a trillion dollar deal to effectively ‘rescue’ the world economy. All of this has been at the expense of a Cabinet which needs to be reckoned with, otherwise, in times of desperate need, the Prime Minister will not find support at his or hers’ weakest moments in their premierships.