Thread: On UK politics 2

Can the Cabinet still exert significant control over the Prime Minister?

I would be compelled to say no to this question, however the counter-argument shall be included in my evaluation, that the Cabinet can assert at least some significant influence over the PM.

In the past, PMs such as Blair or Thatcher have been described by political commentators as very dominant and strong PMs, dictating and controlling their Cabinet under the appropriately coined term, 'Presidential Government'; where governmental power is centralised solely around this one individual. But is this the case?

It is true in some respects, such as through the powers of patronage bestowed upon the PM. These are political abilities specific to the PM of the time, with which he can hire or fire depending on the context. In the cases of Thatcher or Blair, these powers were exercised with a rigorous executive iron fist. For example under Blairs Labour, Jack Straw was demoted from Foreign Secretary to Leader of the House of Commons - a parliamentary non-job, for his open criticism of US plans to invade Iran.

One could also arrive at the conclusion that these powers could be used to plant allies within the PMs Cabinet and effectively control the entire executive process, but the PM is limited by the fact that he must chose ministers whom are representative of all factions and wings of his party (left-wing, right-wing, pro-EU, anti-EU). This has resulted in PMs such as Blair choosing MPs notoriously difficult and frictional such as Gordan Brown as Finance Minister, a perpetual irritant for a budding prime minister. This unwritten fundamental to maintain a balanced composition within the Cabinet helps contain the power of the PM at the sacrifice of convenience or ease for him. Indeed, if the Cabinet is up in arms against the PM, or worse, split; he is in considerable trouble. So he must keep the majority of his colleagues relatively happy to maintain party unity (Liam Fox, the Minister of Defence and George Osborne, the Chancellor to the Exchequer had multiple arguments over budget cuts to the former by the latter, but was swiftly settled, averting possible disaster for the Coalition leaders).

This is an example of Cabinet diplomacy and a diffused situation, but whenever a Cabinet is in a united majority against the prime minister, they can voice their body of opinion to the extent of forcing resignment as was seen with Margaret Thatcher. In 1990 she lost the support of a profound chunk of her backbench Conservatives over the controversial poll tax, which echoed through her Cabinet until they were up in arms and calling for her to step down. Years of bullying tactics and prime ministerial dominance saw some of her longest serving colleagues addressing parliament about her failings. One such minister was Howe, whom delivered a monumental and influential speech, contributing significantly to the toppling of Thatcher. Peter Riddle can be quoted in saying that, "This revolt in November 1990 defined the limits of presidentialism in British politics."

However this is only a microscopic limitation to the colossus of individual PM sway over executive policy. As seen under Blair, a PM can dominate in a very cunning way. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Blair carried out the vast majority of major policy decisions in small, unminuted bi-lateral meetings with specific ministers and/or advisors, undermining the role of the full Cabinet. The cabinet were instead left to discuss the governments media strategy, not policy.

An age-old flaw of the PM, is the fact that he does not represent an individual department. This originally left him reliant on his Cabinet for decisions, however under recent governments, the practise of appointing departmental advisors developed. These experts sit in departments for the PM, reporting back to him about policy, effectively rendering the role of the Cabinet Minister useless. The PM influences the department and this can cause rifts. For example Estelle Morris the Education Minister under Blair was completely undermined by his advisor Andrew Adonis' conflicting views on the topic of university tuition fees. However in saying this, a PM has only so much time. He cannot dictate every single department by himself, so he often chooses to chair a few Cabinet Committees* himself, more or less putting them under his influential power. (Blair chaired foreign policy, especially in the run up to Iraq, which has been exposed by the Hutton Inquiry).

*Cabinet Committees are splinter committees from the full Cabinet that have been developed to deal with the huge amount of policy the Cabinet must decide on. However, these Committees are planted by the PM, choosing whom sits, chairs, and how often they will meet. This has enabled him to be tactical in who he chooses to get the results he wants. They are much smaller than the full cabinet, and any policy decisions that are made CAN be appealed to the full Cabinet by a minister, but only with the permission of the chairperson. If the chair is in alignment with the PM, this is almost impossible.

Paralleling with the PMs control over Cabinet Committees, is his authority over the full Cabinet. He sets the agenda for Cabinet meetings (which were reduced significantly time-wise under Blair to only 30 minutes-1 hour compared to the 3+ hours of previous governments). His Cabinet meetings were often conducted as media management discussions instead of key policy. However in saying that, it is not possible for him to keep important topics off the cards, or any matter that holds a large body of opinion among his ministers, such as the War on Iraq.

However a dominant PM such as Thatcher or Blair with a strong parliamentary party majority, can more or less do what they wish with very little resistance. Government majority is one of a handful of situational factors that either aid or undermine a PM in the eyes of his Cabinet. If a PM is strong and domineering in personality, like Thatcher, whom once slammed a copy of 'The Constitution of Liberty' down on a table during a Shadow Cabinet meeting, saying, "This is what we believe." The sheer strength of will and power commanded by her was enough for the majority of her Cabinet to fold to her whim. Alternatively a weak PM, like John Major with his consensual style, could not influence his Cabinet significantly.

But it's all light control or theoretical points over the PM by the cabinet. In a modern democracy, no lone individual should be able to control to the extent seen in Blairs government through unminuted bi-laterals and 'Kitchen Cabinets' with unelected advisors, concerning matters as important as war or finances.

In conclusion, yes, the cabinet can limit the PM, but in the words of the resigned 2003 Clare Short, "There is a shocking collapse in Government procedure". The PM is limited but by no means controlled by Cabinet.

I have no doubt you have a fine grasp of both National and International politics, but what about the the real elephant in the room. A growing planetary population, and a shrinking food supply.
While we give the various stock markets ( who are now conducting business in cloud cuckoo land ) too much credence. We fail to plan ahead and are still putting profit before democracy, common sense and world peace.
The disconnect between those that govern and the general populace is still huge.
Starting with those countries ruled by dynastic families, usually with oppressive regimes, we can see the civil unrest of the poor and disaffected middle class's, who with nothing too lose are ripe for civil war. With modern arms and ancient grievances borders will mean very little.
If the pursuit of wealth is continued without morality, and consideration of the needs of those that are affected, there will be many more, and much nastier conflicts.
The question is, can we as a species put aside our differences and work together ?
Probably not. If you want to see the future watch a mad max movie.

I have no doubt you have a fine grasp of both National and International politics, but what about the the real elephant in the room. A growing planetary population, and a shrinking food supply.
While we give the various stock markets ( who are now conducting business in cloud cuckoo land ) too much credence. We fail to plan ahead and are still putting profit before democracy, common sense and world peace.
The disconnect between those that govern and the general populace is still huge.
Starting with those countries ruled by dynastic families, usually with oppressive regimes, we can see the civil unrest of the poor and disaffected middle class's, who with nothing too lose are ripe for civil war. With modern arms and ancient grievances borders will mean very little.
If the pursuit of wealth is continued without morality, and consideration of the needs of those that are affected, there will be many more, and much nastier conflicts.
The question is, can we as a species put aside our differences and work together ?
Probably not. If you want to see the future watch a mad max movie.

Yes I would be inclined to agree. I dont know about a mad max scenario, but it certainly isnt going anywhere good. Modern politics and economics are nothing short of a farce and we have created a fantasy that self sustains its own reality. The vast majority of politicians in our modern age are career politicians with very little life experience in any regard; they are simply educated to go into politics and debate. They are very good at the combative reflection that goes on in governments all over the world, but it serves little purpose, and they contribute very little. There are no principles or ideals anymore and I think that is a dangerous void to be standing in. The Labour party and the Tory party in the UK may as well be the same thing, for they stand in the exact same political affiliation. They simply just oppose eachother, because they must.

The divide between the people and the government is still a large one. I believe it just isnt as obvious in the West as it would be for the East, but still completely relevant. The people fear the government, for those that care and for those that dont there are television, material pursuits and a relatively meaningless existance of trivial activities. The problem is vast and deep and the system is designed in such a way that the mind that moves is almost always on the off-foot from the start. This hasnt changed from day one of course, but evolution dictates that we should be growing intellectually and part of that is creating a society that works. I will not be lulled into a false sense of security in the current state of affairs by anyone, because the education system, political system, social system and the vast majority of everything are far from ideal; and ideals is where we should be pushing. People still follow religion in our day and age. What is God? An ideal. The embodiment of perfection. So is it so much to ask for the same for our society?

i often wonder if sinister dark forces are behind this mess, then I look at the people I work with. Very few know how to work a toilet properly, or have figured out if you close a door it will keep the heat in.
I can see why x factor gets more votes than an election.
The interest is not there, and where it is, it is overwhelmed by disillusion.
You could do with a party of pragmatists that are only wanting to fix what they can in one term, and get out. No deals with the movers and shakers, no compromises to hang on to power pointlessly.
I am suspicious of principles.
If we want to survive, we will have to change our ways. We cannot rely on slow moving evolution, or any evolution now we can manipulate our environment to suit ourselves.
Keeping to the film theme, try Idiocracy, the science is dreadful, but it sure reinforces my prejudices.