As per Tony Benn's assessment in the early 1980s;
'The wide range of powers at present exercised by a British Prime Minister...
are now so great as to encroach upon the legitimate rights of the electorate,
undermine the essential role of parliament, usurp some of the functions
of collective Cabinet.... in short, the present centralisation of power into the
hands of one person has gone too far and amounts to a system of personal
rule in the very heart of our parliamentary democracy.'
This goes on to prove gradually and planted firmly a basic idea – that personal or Prime Ministerial government has replaced the collective Cabinet government.
Towards The Changes…
It is therefore clear that the position of Prime Minister has changed somewhat over time. Recent commentators have emphasized the emergence of Prime Ministerial government.
The mass media do play a part in portraying this. It had actively encourages the image of the Prime Minister as the figurehead. The parties, governments and their policies are increasingly associated personally with the Party Leader. A party’s successes and failures can be attributed personally to the party leader.
The British Prime Minister now takes a very public role, exploiting the establishment of television as the most prominent medium to address themselves directly to the public. In this way they can form a relationship directly with the public, again bypassing their colleagues.
Prime Ministers are now closely linked with economic and foreign affairs. If the economy is doing well, the Prime Minister can take the credit for it, but likewise when it isn’t doing so well, they are likely to be blamed personally. The Prime Minister also makes meetings with foreign leaders, and is seen as the chief spokesperson for Britain politically. There are growing concerns about the ‘pre-cooking’ of government policy.
In the meantime, policies are formed outside of Cabinet through informal meetings between the Prime Minister and other Ministers, advisors or civil servants. The Prime Minister can therefore formulate policy with the aid of whomever he chooses, and then take it to Cabinet to be approved.
This practice in time repeatedly done again and again will lead to the extending of the Prime Minister’s powers to decide. Slowly and gradually, it becomes a norm for the particular government. For example, where Margaret Thatcher was also in favour of using small groups of advisors and Cabinet members and thus by-passed what were perceived to be the ‘proper’ ways of doing things.
Why Does It Happen?
The debate on Britain moving towards a Prime Ministerial government by no means new. The reason behind this includes many.
Richard Crossman traces the beginnings of the changes to 1867. He saw the development of the party system and the growth of the civil service as the two main factors. Both of these developments involved increased centralization, with the Prime Minister ultimately in control. The effect of the party system is that the Prime Minister stands at the head of both the administrative and political arms of government, confusing the roles of Party Leader and head of government.
Tony Benn described the Prime Minister’s most important power as her ability to appoint and dismiss Cabinet Ministers. To back this up, she has power over Ministerial conduct through the Ministerial Code. It is arguable therefore that the Prime Minister can persuade cabinet colleagues to accept her opinion with the threat of losing their job.
The Convention of Ministerial Responsibilities Encourages Britain Further Into Moving To A System of Prime Ministerial Government
The principle of Cabinet collective responsibility, as laid down in the ministerial code states that while ministers may express their opinions at will in private, once a decision has been made, all ministers must accept it.
A minister can then no longer publicly speak on issues for themselves, and must maintain a united front with the rest of the cabinet. Any minister who is unable to publicly agree with a cabinet decision must resign from government. And this rarely happen. This is because resignation is probably the last thing on the minister’s mind and they have their political career to look after for.
It can therefore be argued that this strengthens the Prime Minister’s position, as any dissenting minister must either resign or accept a decision. Once the decision has been accepted, ministers who privately disagree are unable to criticise it in public.
Examples of Prime Ministers In Exercising Their Powers
The prime minister alone can activate the codes for a nuclear strike without consulting the Cabinet. The only one to authorise such a strike was Churchill; the 1943 Quebec Agreement meant that he had to give the go-ahead for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Repeated attempts had been made to get him to take the decision to cabinet, whose combined policy committee supported him, but still he refused.
Harold Wilson was famed for his so-called ‘Kitchen Cabinets’ whereby a few favourites met to discuss policy issues and by-passed and input by the Cabinet ironically selected by Wilson.
Margaret Thatcher was also in favour of using small groups of advisors and Cabinet members and thus by-passed what were perceived to be the ‘proper’ ways of doing things. It is said that her decision to ban trade unions at GCHQ in Cheltenham in 1984, was the result of a meeting between such a small group but a meeting that by-passed the convention of Cabinet collective decision-making.
In addition to that, during the 1980s while Margaret Thatcher was in office, Johnson (1990) went as far as ‘quasi-monarchical,’ referring to Thatcher’s use of the royal ‘we,’ concluding that the way she acted is as if she is the mother-of-the-nation at national tragedies and also, her taking of the salute on military occasions. He also referred to the way she wielded power, making dramatic reductions in the number and length of Cabinet Meetings, springing policy upon other Ministers without discussion and often speaking of government actions as her own personal decisions.
Further, Thatcher also expanded the extent Prime Ministerial decision-making power in structural ways; these included the expansion of the Prime Ministerial staff by 60% between 1983 and 1993. She used the increased staff in conjunction with think-tanks to bypass the Civil Service and Cabinet reinforcing her own power base. The magnitude of her power was clearly proved in the creation of the Poll Tax for even with all the protest, the legalisation of this tax is still done with.
This position has changed people's perceptions of British government. As per Dunleavy & Rhodes;
"Thatcher's period in office has converted the monocratic version of
Prime Ministerial power into a widely held conventional wisdom.".
In short, the Prime Minister himself/herself at times would just bypass the cabinet in making decision or with their “kitchen cabinet”. This shows clearly their power in such prime ministerial government. Some examples of recent events whereby important decisions were made by a small group of people include:
-
The devaluation of the pound in 1967 by Harold Wilson;
-
The Falklands conflict of 1982 when the Cabinet was suspended by Margaret Thatcher and replaced by a ‘War Cabinet’; and
- The Gulf War of 1991 when John Major worked with a ‘War Cabinet’ .
The Reduction of The Cabinet’s Powers Clearly Shown That :-
Britain Has Moved Into A System of Prime Ministerial Government
There is plenty of plain evidence to show the reduction of cabinets power.
First, in the growth of the Prime Minister’s office and its staff. The number of ‘special advisors’ to the Prime Minister has risen from around 6 during Thatcher’s office to 80 under Blair. Cabinet committees are increasingly used, issues being discussed by only a select group of relevant ministers. Cabinet thus play very little role in discussion of policy.
Also, Blair announced without any consultation with the cabinet that the Prime Minister's question time would be reduced from two fifteen-minute sessions per week to one of thirty minutes on Wednesdays. This obviously suggest that he wished to insulate himself from parliamentary criticism.
Blair had also try to diminished the importance of Cabinet they way Thatcher did. He did so by pushing through his own demands not to have proper cabinet discussion, or to bypass such discussion by forming smaller decision-making groups.
For instance, he only had a small meeting with Bernie Ecclestone, Formula One's chief organizer and a few officials without reference to the cabinet in deciding to exclude the ban on tobacco advertising in Formula One motor racing. Blair couldn’t be bothered by the fact that the junior minister, Tessa Jowell, and her boss Frank Dobson opposed this exclusion.
Also, even if the matter comes to the Cabinet, the policies would have been discussed and passed but the process of Cabinet discussion still goes on as if to just inform the cabinet about Blair’s decisions.
As a result, the former permanent secretary Alan Bailey wrote that the episode “shows the need to involve the relevant ministers in decision making and to get back to proper Cabinet government which has been in decline for the last two decades”.
What is most saddening is when it was shown that no one dare to oppose the Prime Minister himself. This is reflected by clearly when The Economist wryly suggested that 'no publications are banned, yet self-censorship achieves a near unanimity which would be the envy of many a totalitarian regime. It is not permitted to criticise the prime minister'.
Examples Preventing The Prime Minister In Using Their Powers
In certain circumstances, the cabinet might prevent the Prime Minister from administering such powers. Here, we shall examine a few instances.
Attlee had authorised the building of a British atom bomb and drew up detailed preparations for World War III despite protest from the cabinet. The chiefs of staff, fearing an imminent Soviet attack, threatened their collective resignation in order to force him to keep open mediterranean and Middle East bases from which the RAF could bomb the USSR.
However so, Major Attlee had fought at Gallipoli and was correspondingly sceptical about what generals had to say, favouring the MI6 view that the Soviet Union would not risk a major war until at least the mid-1950s.
Yet by 1949 Attlee's inner group of ministers had launched a programme of subversive activities behind the cabinet’s back and approved war plans that included censorship, civil defence and internment camps on the Isle of Man.
Sometimes, it would be impossible or too late for the Cabinet to prevent the Prime Minister from making certain decision for various reasons. For one, the Cabinet might not know anything about the issues concern. Two, the decision might had been planned and carried out with the intention of keeping the Cabinet in the dark.
Eventhough the Prime Minister and his few so called “kitchen cabinet” succeed in doing so, they would eventually be held against for the Cabinet do have a way to beat this system. The Cabinet can always tender a vote of no confidence against a Prime Minister whom they are dissatisfied with.
For instance, Margaret Thatcher’s downfall provides one of the strongest cases for the need to keep cabinet colleagues on her side. Heseltine stormed out of a cabinet meeting in 1986 over a difference in opinion, claiming he was unable to stick to the principle of collective responsibility. Similarly, Howe resigned from government in 1990 as he could no longer support the government’s policy on Europe.
Both these cases raised doubts that the resignations were primarily because of a policy disagreement. It seems much more likely that they were manifestations of power struggles and personality clashes.
Lawson resigned as Chancellor in 1989 after disagreements with Thatcher’s personal economic advisor, Alan Walters. These major rifts in the party brought doubts about the wisdom of keeping Thatcher as party leader, and a leadership challenge was mounted in 1990, ultimately leading to Thatcher’s downfall.
All these goes to say that even the most powerful Prime Minister whom dictatorship would be caught up in the end. Again, Margaret Thatcher is often described as one of the most powerful Prime Ministers in Britain and despite this apparent power, she is the only Prime Minister in the post-war period to have been forced out of office.
Thatcher whom increasingly believed that she could operate without Cabinet support, forced resignations of senior colleagues such as Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe and increasingly alienated her Cabinet.
Geoffrey Howe, a former colleague of Thatcher's, started the process that lead to an effective revolt against her style of leadership and her ultimate resignation as Prime Minister in 1990. Thus after the first ballot the majority of the Cabinet told her she should go and without their support she lacked authority and had little choice but to resign.
As per Thatcher’s memoirs:
“a prime minister who knows that his or her Cabinet
has withdrawn its support is fatally weakened”.
John Major also experienced a revolt over his support for Britain developing greater links with . He is alleged to have referred to those Cabinet colleagues who did not support his stance on Europe as "bastards". Eventually, in , when Major called a , the party was in such disarray that in suffered in biggest electoral defeat in recent history.
Currently, Blair has to respect that his position as party leader is dependent on maintaining support amongst the Labour MP back-benchers. If he loses this, he will lose the authority required by a party leader and his hopes of leading the party without the support of that party will be minimal.
Those back-benchers who fail to support his style of leadership could just put up a 'stalking horse' candidate in an election contest for party leadership. Though Blair would win this contest it would be damaging for the party as the start of any rebellion might prove difficult to contain and it might gain an unstoppable momentum.
What I’m trying to drive at is that the potential or fear for a revolt in the is a limitation or a prevention itself on a Prime Minister’s in exercising his powers.
Since a Prime Minister relies upon the support of the majority party in Parliament, he must impress his cabinet and not batter them into submission. Indeed, “whips are not always powerful”. This is especially true to MP’s who have retired from senior posts and no longer have ambitions of gaining promotion. For instance, retired Prime Minister Edward Heath slotted into this category and as such could not be coerced by the whips. Instead, a mere appeal to party loyalty had to suffice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Britain has certainly moved from a system of Cabinet government to a system of Prime Ministerial government. Eventhough so, if we analyze and give some thought to it, what exist now in the British government is a mixture of both systems of the government.
If we quote examples of doings of Prime Minister in exercising their powers, it’s obvious and clear that Prime Ministerial government is in practise in Britain. But we cannot afford to be so rigid and by looking at the big picture, the practise of Prime Ministerial government is only to a certain extent.
Similarly, there are limits to how far the Prime Minister can intervene on specific policy areas. One human simply can’t be everywhere and know everything. Most expertise and specialisation is located within individual departments, and this is where the bulk of policy is created. So it is difficult for Prime Ministers to directly interfere with much of government business.
Although the Prime Minister do possess considerable powers, it is ultimately the job of individual departments; the Cabinet and not the Prime Minister to formulate policy. This is more out of practicality than anything else. As the case of Margaret Thatcher showed, major rifts within cabinet don’t prove popular with the parliamentary party, and it is of an utmost important to maintain a united cabinet. Therefore the power and influence of cabinet colleagues probably do provide the most significant constraint upon British Prime Ministers.
With this, I end my assignment with a quote as Lord Acton once said :-
“Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
usually between 15 to 25 Cabinet ministers
Includes the House of Lords and House of Commons
resulting in a establishment of constitutional monarchy
Britain’s first female Conservative Prime Minister from 1979-1990
Best known as “Iron Lady”
Whilst as a Minister of the Labour Government, Richard Crossman kept diaries of Cabinet proceedings.
The diaries were published giving the public a detailed account of government affairs after his death.
A code of conducts and guidance on procedures for Ministers
Sir Winston Churchill - Prime Minister from 1940-1945 (the coalition government); during war, 1951-55
Labour Prime Minister from 1964-66, 1966-1970, 1974-76
A very unpopular tax maintained for a period by the will of Thatcher alone.
Dunleavy and Rhodes, Core Executive Studies, Public Administration 1990, pp 8
Pls refer to subtopic “The Reduction of The Cabinet’s Powers Clearly Shown That:-
Britain Has Moved Into A Prime Ministerial Government” on pg 8-9
The Economist, 13th September, 1997
Clement Atlee – Prime Minister from 1945-1951
served under Churchill during WWII coalition government