The Cabinet adheres to a convention known as collective responsibility. This means that, in public, the members of the Cabinet give support to government policies, even if they privately disagree. If a minister is unable to support a Cabinet decision, that minister is expected to resign or be dismissed. In 1989, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, resigned because he felt he was being undermined by Mrs. Thatcher’s reliance on the advice of her economic adviser, Sir Alan Walters. This radical move against your own party leaves the Cabinet unsettled and questions are then asked about the discipline of the party. The strength of this convention can be debatable. A recent example of this is when Claire Short spoke out publicly about the Millennium Dome and was not made accountable. The long-standing disagreement between Brown and Prescott shows a lack of unity within the present Cabinet. This convention can act as cover for increasing prime-ministerial power. The convention forces ministers who oppose a policy to back it or face disciplinary action and the loss of their status in the party.
Burch (1990) sets out two views of who in the cabinet system takes policy initiatives and determines decisions; a conventional view and an alternative view. The conventional view says that ‘ultimately power over policy rests in the Cabinet (Burch 1990:102). The Cabinet sets out a broad framework for major policies and it is then the relevant department to work out the details and carry out the policy. Burch argues that two fundamental questions have to be asked. ‘What is a ‘major’ policy issue and does the Cabinet have the capacity and competence to act I a collective manner (Burch 1990:103)?’ This leads us onto the alternative view.
The frequency of Cabinet meetings has declined over the years. Since 1974, the Cabinet meetings have only taken place weekly. Under Blair, this weekly meeting is usually completed in an hour. This is surely not enough time to formulate and agree on major policies. Many of the major policies that do reach the Cabinet are effectively pre-determined by the time they arrive (Burch 1990:104. In the UK, prime ministerial power has subverted the collective nature of UK government. The full Cabinet is merely the focal point in the British cabinet system. Cabinet committees are set up comprising of subject specialists to examine policy proposals in more detail than is possible in weekly Cabinet meetings. This gives strength to the prime minister who appoints the committees. When the proposals are announced in a cabinet meeting, there is often a lack of expertise to challenge them (Heywood 1997:329). The prime minister is able to appoint sympathizers to the heads of key committees. Cabinet committees retain a clear importance under Blair and those who chair the key cabinet committees remain critical members of the government (Holliday 2000:91). There remains and underlying fear that these committees reduce the Cabinet to a rubber stamp (Kingdom 1999:412). ). Nigel Lawson’s comments on Thatcher’s Cabinet show the lack of power within the Cabinet. He states that ‘Cabinet meetings were not important and Cabinet is now a dignified part of the constitution. Key decisions were made in small groups or committees (Lawson 1992:127).
Critics have alleged that Prime Ministers have increasingly resorted to Cabinet committees as a means of by-passing Cabinet when they have feared strong opposition to their favoured policies (Dorey 1991:14). The Prime Minister is able to set in motion a policy in a Cabinet committee made up of members that have a similar stance to him. Once the policy has been finalised by that committee, it is likely to have acquired to much momentum for the Cabinet to reject it. This is evidence to suggest Britain is ruled by an elective dictatorship. Burch (1990:107) argues that ‘the extent to which he or she is able to determine policy depends on the skill used to exploit the opportunities arising and the maintenance of the support or acquiescence of Cabinet colleagues’. However, it would be extremely difficult for the Cabinet to function properly without these committees. The committees increase efficiency within the workings of the government.
The Cabinet acts as a first check on the Prime Minister’s power. The resignation of a minister due to opposition of a party policy is a huge rebellion. It is only on major disagreements when ministers reject the convention of collective responsibility. The loss of Heseltine, Lawson and Howe led to the vote of no confidence that ended the Thatcher era. The Cabinet in this sense acts as a safeguard from damaging policies.
Cabinet government, in theory, places power equally between the ministers. As so often in politics, theory does not always match the practice. Several factors have taken away the political equality of the Cabinet members. It could be said that the current Cabinet is only there to provide support for Tony Blair and it is in fact just the ‘Big Four’ of Blair, Brown, Prescott and Cook that wield any power. Burch (1990:102) identifies the role of the Cabinet being defined by current circumstances. He says that ‘the key point about the machinery of Cabinet government is that it is highly flexible and it can be made to work in a variety of ways in accordance with the approach of this or that Prime Minister, the complexion of government that he or she leads, the nature of policy issues under consideration and the political circumstances at the time’. The shift away form Cabinet government suggest that there is not just one power centrw but a number of them (Burch 1990:108).
