“Britain has Cabinet not Prime Ministerial Government.

Discuss.

Primus inter pares - first among equals. Does this phrase still hold relevance in UK
politics or has Cabinet government had its day? By analyzing the Cabinet-Prime Minister
relationships under the premierships of Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair
this essay will attempt to draw conclusions on their respective governments and
subsequently summarise that Britain has either Cabinet-based or Prime Ministerial (one
could say “Presidential”) government.

The 1979 general election resulted in a Conservative party victory, which began an
eighteen year reign for the Tories. The first eleven years of this era was of course under
the leadership of the “Iron Lady”, Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher has been regarded as a
very authoritative figure with a “my way or the highway” approach with her Tory peers.
When it came to her Cabinet, political analyst Peter Riddell states in the book The
Thatcher Effect that “Mrs Thatcher rarely uses the Cabinet to discuss major issues, but
treats it more as a reporting session on decisions…or for routine briefings”1. This
implies that Thatcher’s style of government was more akin to Prime Ministerial than
Cabinet. This was further demonstrated in 1981 when she made her first Cabinet
reshuffle: those who were inclined with the previous Tory Prime Minister Edward
Heath’s economic policies were removed, such as Sir Ian Gilmour, Mark Carlisle and
Lord Soames. They were replaced by people who Thatcher believed would agree with her
policies. People such as Norman Tebbit, Cecil Parkinson and Nigel Lawson were brought
into the Cabinet. This reshuffle was made to “enable Mrs Thatcher to pursue her
conviction politics with less internal opposition and with like-minded allies.” 2 The fact
that the word “allies” is present here gives connotations of Thatcher being like a military
general, let alone a Prime Minister, thus farther pulling her government away from the
Cabinet bracket and closer to Prime Ministerial.

The 1986 Westland scandal was the strongest indication of Thatcher’s style of
government. The controversy was based on the future of financially-struggling Westland,
the last operating British helicopter manufacturer. Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine
backed Westland to merge with European companies whereas Thatcher (along with the
Trade and Industry Secretary Leon Brittan) preferred the company to join up with the
American manufacturers Sikorsky. The conflict between Heseltine and Thatcher resulted
in the former emphatically resigning from his Cabinet position and storming out of a
January Cabinet meeting. Heseltine chose not to endorse in collective responsibility. This
concept means that all Cabinet members, regardless of their own personal opinions, must
unite with the decision made by the Prime Minister. If a Cabinet member such as
Heseltine in the Westland affair will not stand by the Prime Minister, then he or she must
promptly stand down from the Cabinet. The importance of this concept was proven
1
Anthony Seldon/Dennis Kavanagh, “The Thatcher Effect”, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989),
p102
2
Anthony Seldon/Dennis Kavanagh, “The Thatcher Effect”, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989),
p103
through the intense press coverage this scandal caused: although Thatcher emphasised
that she was a Prime Minister not to be opposed by her party peers, the negative press
damaged her party’s image. It was only four years later, after losing the support of her
party and Cabinet ministers, that Thatcher stood down and gave way for John Major.

To summarise Thatcher’s government, her authoritative style and effective Cabinet

reshuffles demonstrated her preference for little opposition to her policies. It can be
concluded, therefore, that this Prime Minister’s style was more Prime Ministerial than
Cabinet.

When Thatcher stepped down from office in 1990, it was time for John Major to take the
reins of the Conservative government. Political analyst Dennis Kavanagh states that
Major’s leadership “was marked by his collegial approach to Cabinet”3. This illustrates
Major’s completely different leadership style compared to his strong-willed predecessor.
An example of his government handling could be seen through his appointment of
Cabinet ministers who held varying opinions on government policy. Whereas Thatcher
only appointed “dries” (hard-line free marketers) and Euroskeptics to her Cabinet, Major
retained some of those ministers but also drafted in “wets” (supporters of increased
public spending) and Europhiles for a more balanced Conservative Cabinet. The authors
of the book The new British Politics collectively state that Major’s Cabinet reshuffle
“succeeded in healing political wounds and unifying the government.”4 The Tory
government badly needed a “stabaliser”5 due to the internal bickering over issues such as
the European Union and the economy. Major’s focus on Cabinet-style government
emphasised his desire to unite his party as a team, making them better organised with
members having an equal say on government policy.

However, his leadership style and his relationship with Cabinet ministers began to wane
after the 1991 Gulf War. The press and political analysts started to criticise his
leadership, calling him “grey, weak and ineffective”6. Major’s efforts to unify his divided
party with a relaxed and reassuring approach enabled Cabinet ministers such as John
Redwood (Secretary of State for Wales) and Michael Portillo (Secretary of State for
Defence) to voice criticism about his leadership – such actions in a Prime Ministerial
government would have resulted in prompt dismissals. Leader of the opposition party
Tony Blair closed a January 1997 Commons debate by repeatedly calling Major “weak,
weak, weak.”7 The lack of collective discipline testified that Major’s style was not
authoritarian – like Thatcher – but more “democratic”, preferring to work closely with his
Cabinet.

3
Bill Jones/Dennis Kavanagh/Michael Moran/Philip Norton, “Politics UK Sixth Edition”, (Pearson
Longman, 2007), p496
4
Ian Budge/Ivor Crewe/David McKay/Ken Newton, “The new British Politics”, (Addison Wesley
Longman Ltd, 1998), p216
5
Bill Jones/Dennis Kavanagh/Michael Moran/Philip Norton, “Politics UK Sixth Edition”, (Pearson
Longman, 2007), p496
6
Ian Budge/Ivor Crewe/David McKay/Ken Newton, “The new British Politics”, (Addison Wesley
Longman Ltd, 1998), p216
7
OpenPolitics, “Tony Blair vs. John Major 1995/1997” <http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=QpZhugomNJE>
Major’s government can be concluded as being Cabinet-based rather than Prime
Ministerial, which was a big contribution in the Conservative party’s downfall at the
1997 general election.

New Prime Minister, new style of government. Clues of how Tony Blair would run his
government were evident during his time as opposition party leader, when according to
his leading biographer Professor Anthony Seldon, he “had got his own way on virtually
all issues and debates and had successfully marginalized most of his party critics. As
Prime Minister he wanted no less.”8 One could anticipate that Blair was going to run a
Prime Ministerial government, even before he had entered number 10. Some have gone a
bit further in describing Blair’s leadership style: Peter Riddell for instance said
“Goodbye to Cabinet government, welcome to the Blair Presidency.”9 Blair’s frequent
use of spin and consultations with Communications and Strategy Director Alistair
Campbell demonstrated his desire to forge a good relationship with the media, a similar
tactic regularly employed by the American President.

In regards to Blair and his Cabinet, political analyst Paul Fawcett states that “the aim of
the Cabinet Office was to allow Blair to remain on top, if not in detailed touch.” 10
Effectively, the Cabinet was reduced to “rubber stamping”11 Blair’s decisions according
to the late Mo Mowlam. Rather than consult with his Cabinet, Blair preferred private
bilateral meetings with ministers and powerful people. For instance, when the decision
was made to ban tobacco advertising in 2000, Blair held a meeting with Formula One
chief organiser Bernie Ecclestone without the involvement of his Cabinet. A compromise
was made: Formula One racing would still be allowed to advertise tobacco. This caused
outrage especially with Tessa Jowell, the junior minister involved, as she along with
many others opposed the decision. There have been other decisions made without
Cabinet consultation including postponing the Euro and reducing the lone parent benefit.
Even projects like the Millennium Dome were given the go-ahead despite the majority of
Blair’s Cabinet having little confidence in its success. His dominant approach is
comically rounded up in a cartoon in the September 2005 edition of Politics Review
magazine: Blair is portrayed as a power crazed dalek, saying “I do not rule by dik-tat”12
with other daleks – portraying his Cabinet ministers – saying the exact same thing with
reference to their leader. The monotone voices associated with these machines and the
fact that they are robots further emphasises the point that Blair “programs” his
government to do what he says. However, Blair’s Cabinet ministers did not always bow
to collective responsibility: Claire Short and Robin Cook for instance both resigned from

8
Anthony Seldon/Dennis Kavanagh, “The Powers behind the Prime Minister: the hidden influence of
number 10”, (HarperCollins Ltd, 1999), p241
9
Bill Jones, “Tony Blair’s style of government: an interim assessment”, (Oxford University Press, 1999),
p72
10
Anthony Seldon, “Blair’s Britain 1997-2007”, (Cambridge University Press, 2007) p86
11
Anthony Seldon/Dennis Kavanagh, “The Powers behind the Prime Minister: the hidden influence of
number 10”, (HarperCollins Ltd, 1999), p242
12
Steve Bell, “I do not rule by dik-tat”, Politics Review September 2005 edition, (Philip Allan Ltd, 2005),
p15
their positions to voice their disgust over Blair’s decision to aid America in Iraq. He has
also faced intense pressure in the Commons: his anti-terror bills were rejected in a
November 2005 vote and he also had to permit civil marriages for homosexuals on the
grounds of human rights, despite his own Catholic views.

Blair’s style of government can be concluded as being similar to Margaret Thatcher’s:

dominant, with little regard for the Cabinet. Without doubt his era as Prime Minister can
be allocated to the Prime Ministerial government bracket (even perhaps Presidential)
rather than Cabinet-based.

Overall, the government’s style depends on the leadership of the Prime Minister. To say
that Britain has Cabinet government is false, as although it is too early to discuss Gordon
Brown’s style of government, only a mere seven of the past twenty-eight years of
government can be regarded as Cabinet-based. Bearing in mind the increasing powers of
the Prime Minister in the legislative process, it would be more logical to conclude that
Britain has Prime Ministerial government rather than Cabinet, although it is the Prime
Minister himself that decides the style of the British government.

Words: 1499
Bibliography

Books

Anthony Seldon/Dennis Kavanagh (1989): “The Thatcher Effect”, Oxford University

Press, New York

Bill Jones/Dennis Kavanagh/Michael Moran/Philip Norton (2007): “Politics UK Sixth

Edition”, Pearson Longman

Ian Budge/Ivor Crewe/David McKay/Ken Newton (1998): “The new British Politics”,
Addison Wesley Longman Ltd

Anthony Seldon/Dennis Kavanagh (1999): “The Powers behind the Prime Minister: the
hidden influence of number 10”, HarperCollins Ltd

Anthony Seldon (2007): “Blair’s Britain 1997-2007”, Cambridge University Press

Bill Jones (1999): “Tony Blair’s style of government: an interim assessment”, Oxford
University Press

Magazines

Steve Bell (2005): “Politics Review September 2005 edition”, Philip Allan Ltd

Websites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpZhugomNJE