The prime ministers powers of patronage extend to the appointment of cabinet members. This gives the prime minister a crucial advantage over colleagues in the cabinet. In theory, prime ministers can create a cabinet in their own image, rewarding supporters and penalising disloyal MPs. Following the 2005 general election, Tony Blair made changes to his ministerial team, such as moving Geoff Hoon from his position as defence secretary to be the leader of the House of Commons. In 1997 he also demonstrated his power by appointing Lord Irvine as chancellor and Peter Mandelson as minister without portfolio at the cabinet office because they were close friends, this indicates the overwhelming power the pm has over the cabinet in the sense he was able to appoint two friends to high ranking positions in government. This gives the prime minister ample opportunity to mould the cabinet into his own likeness, enabling him to control all aspects of the executive.
The prime ministers powers of patronage also extend to the appointment of cabinet committees and the chairman of such committees. Key decisions and policy recommendations are increasingly being made by small groups of cabinet ministers working in committees. This has, in effect, significantly reduced the cabinets role in the policy making process. The prime minister decides which ministers sit on these committees and which issues they deal with. This gives the prime minister increased power and influence as they can appoint with a desired result in mind. After the 1997 landslide victory, Tony Blair ensured that proposals issued from the committee set up to recommend constitutional reform issues reflected his own non radical stance by appointing a number of conservative ministers with a similar outlook to his own. Such an example would suggest that cabinet ministers are ultimately controlled by the prime minister.
Prime ministers can reshuffle cabinet portfolios. This allows the prime minister to promote successful ministers, demote those who have underperformed and freshen up the team. Ministers whose continued presence might damage the standing of government can be sacked completely. Margaret Thatcher’s reputation as the “Iron Lady” extended to her relationship with her cabinet, many of whom she axed in several controversial reshuffles. Blair also dismissed Peter Mandelson, who was twice forced to leave cabinet posts when his behavior was questioned. Such examples illustrate the powers available to the prime minister, helping to explain the continued prevalence of a high level of collective responsibility in the cabinets supporting of the PM.
However, while the prime ministers powers of patronage give them the power to appoint their senior cabinet, it does not in practice give them a free hand in controlling it. A prime minister is unlikely to overlook senior party figures, some of whom may have been rivals for the prime ministers job. John Major’s opponents in the 1990 conservative leadership challenge, Michael Heseltine and Douglas Hurd, were both given cabinet posts. Senior politicians may also have claims to the office because of their high profile. Gordon Brown, for example, agreed not to stand in the 1995 Labour leadership challenge to improve Blair’s chances of victory and, in return gained assurances that he was to become Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future. This shows that senior party members and cabinet ministers have a degree of power.
According to a political commentator “The power to dismiss cabinet ministers is a blunt weapon that can blow up in the prime ministers face”. A botched reshuffle can raise questions about the prime ministers judgment, reveal cabinet divisions and highlight policy failings. Thatcher’s demotion of foreign secretary Geoffrey Howe also had damaging consequences for her, as Howe resigned from cabinet and launched a media attack on her that helped bring about her downfall. This power is not the most important of the PMs Powers but as discussed above it can have damaging results for the political career of the prime minister if not used wisely.
Despite the growing trend of prime ministerial dominance over the chairing of cabinet meetings and influencing decisions, there have been occasions when the PM has been defeated by cabinet. As primus inter pares, the PM, unlike the American president, does not have the power to overrule the cabinet. If a cabinet is united against the PM, their position is untenable. In 1986 Thatcher was defeated in cabinet over the proposed sale of Landrover to General Motors. By 1990, she had lost the support of most cabinet members and was forced to resign. Tony Blair faced a number of large scale rebellions by Labour MPs over the war in Iraq, foundation hospitals and tuition fees during his second term, which saw not only his opinion polls rating fall but what was also described as a loss of authority over his cabinet.
In conclusion, for most of the twentieth century, the UK system of government was described as cabinet government whose members exercise collective responsibility but ultimately were controlled by the prime minister
