Prime Minister Exam Questions
9 Markers
1) Explain and analyse three ways in which the cabinet can limit the power of the Prime
Minister (2019)
Collective decision-making: The Cabinet can limit the power of the Prime Minister by making
decisions collectively, instead of relying solely on the Prime Minister's judgement. This can
help ensure that policies are well-considered and balanced, and can prevent the Prime
Minister from making decisions that are too partisan or ideologically driven. For example, in
2019, the Cabinet collectively decided to push back against the Prime Minister's attempts to
prorogue (suspend) Parliament, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court ruling that the
prorogation was unlawful. This decision showed that the Cabinet was willing to challenge the
Prime Minister and protect the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Influence over policy: The Cabinet can limit the power of the Prime Minister by exerting
influence over policy decisions. While the Prime Minister has the final say on policy matters,
Cabinet ministers can use their expertise and experience to shape policy proposals and offer
alternative viewpoints. In 2019, the Cabinet played a significant role in shaping the Brexit
negotiations, with ministers from both the pro-Brexit and pro-Remain wings of the
Conservative Party offering their opinions on how the negotiations should proceed. This
showed that the Cabinet was able to influence policy decisions and ensure that the
government took a more pragmatic approach to Brexit.
Collective responsibility: The principle of collective responsibility means that Cabinet
ministers are bound to support the decisions of the Cabinet, even if they personally disagree
with them. This can limit the power of the Prime Minister by ensuring that they are held
accountable to the rest of the Cabinet and the wider government. In 2019, the principle of
collective responsibility was tested when several Cabinet ministers resigned in protest at the
Prime Minister's handling of Brexit negotiations. This showed that the Cabinet was willing to
hold the Prime Minister to account and that individual ministers were prepared to put their
principles ahead of their government positions.
Analysis:
The power of the Prime Minister is not absolute, and the Cabinet can play an important role
in limiting their power. By making decisions collectively, exerting influence over policy, and
enforcing the principle of collective responsibility, the Cabinet can ensure that the
government operates in a more balanced and democratic way. These actions can also
promote transparency and accountability, as well as prevent the Prime Minister from making
decisions that are too partisan or ideologically driven. However, it's worth noting that the
Cabinet's ability to limit the power of the Prime Minister is not absolute, and ultimately
depends on the willingness of individual ministers to challenge the Prime Minister and hold
them to account.
2) Explain and analyse three ways in which collective responsibility has come under
pressure since 1979 (2021)
Party polarization: With the rise of party polarization, MPs have become more likely to
publicly dissent from their party leadership on issues they care about. This has made it
harder to maintain collective responsibility within the government, as MPs may feel more
loyalty to their constituents or ideological beliefs than to their party leadership. For example,
, in 2019, several Conservative MPs defied the government's position on Brexit, ultimately
leading to their expulsion from the party.
Evidence: The 2019 Brexit rebellion involved 21 Conservative MPs voting against their
party's whip to block a no-deal Brexit. This was a direct challenge to the government's
position, and resulted in their expulsion from the party. In addition, in 2020, several
Conservative MPs rebelled against the government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic,
with some calling for stricter lockdown measures.
Explanation: The increase in party polarization and MPs' willingness to publicly dissent from
their party leadership has made it more difficult to maintain collective responsibility. This is
because MPs may feel more loyalty to their constituents or ideological beliefs than to their
party leadership, and may be more willing to publicly challenge the government's position.
2. Increased media scrutiny: The growth of 24-hour news and social media has made it
easier for MPs to communicate their dissent to the public, and for the media to report
on it. This has put pressure on the government to respond to dissenting voices, and
has made it more difficult to maintain the appearance of collective responsibility.
Evidence: In 2019, a recording was leaked of a private meeting between Boris Johnson and
Conservative MPs, in which Johnson suggested he would rather "die in a ditch" than ask the
EU for another Brexit extension. This put pressure on the government to take a more
hardline position on Brexit, and made it difficult to maintain the appearance of collective
responsibility.
Explanation: The growth of 24-hour news and social media has made it easier for MPs to
communicate their dissent to the public, and for the media to report on it. This has put
pressure on the government to respond to dissenting voices, and has made it more difficult
to maintain the appearance of collective responsibility.
3. Increasing power of special advisers: Since the 1980s, the number and influence of
special advisers (SPADs) in government has grown significantly. SPADs are
appointed by ministers to provide advice and support, but they are not subject to the
same accountability mechanisms as civil servants. This has made it easier for
ministers to ignore the advice of civil servants and rely on the advice of their own
political appointees, which can undermine the principle of collective responsibility.
Evidence: In 2019, Dominic Cummings, then chief adviser to Boris Johnson, was found to
have breached lockdown rules during the coronavirus pandemic. This led to calls for his
resignation, but he was ultimately able to retain his position, suggesting that he had
significant influence over the Prime Minister.
Explanation: The increasing power of special advisers has made it easier for ministers to
ignore the advice of civil servants and rely on the advice of their own political appointees,
which can undermine the principle of collective responsibility. This is because SPADs are
not subject to the same accountability mechanisms as civil servants, and may be more
willing to provide advice that supports the minister's position, rather than providing impartial
advice.
Individual:
9 Markers
1) Explain and analyse three ways in which the cabinet can limit the power of the Prime
Minister (2019)
Collective decision-making: The Cabinet can limit the power of the Prime Minister by making
decisions collectively, instead of relying solely on the Prime Minister's judgement. This can
help ensure that policies are well-considered and balanced, and can prevent the Prime
Minister from making decisions that are too partisan or ideologically driven. For example, in
2019, the Cabinet collectively decided to push back against the Prime Minister's attempts to
prorogue (suspend) Parliament, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court ruling that the
prorogation was unlawful. This decision showed that the Cabinet was willing to challenge the
Prime Minister and protect the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Influence over policy: The Cabinet can limit the power of the Prime Minister by exerting
influence over policy decisions. While the Prime Minister has the final say on policy matters,
Cabinet ministers can use their expertise and experience to shape policy proposals and offer
alternative viewpoints. In 2019, the Cabinet played a significant role in shaping the Brexit
negotiations, with ministers from both the pro-Brexit and pro-Remain wings of the
Conservative Party offering their opinions on how the negotiations should proceed. This
showed that the Cabinet was able to influence policy decisions and ensure that the
government took a more pragmatic approach to Brexit.
Collective responsibility: The principle of collective responsibility means that Cabinet
ministers are bound to support the decisions of the Cabinet, even if they personally disagree
with them. This can limit the power of the Prime Minister by ensuring that they are held
accountable to the rest of the Cabinet and the wider government. In 2019, the principle of
collective responsibility was tested when several Cabinet ministers resigned in protest at the
Prime Minister's handling of Brexit negotiations. This showed that the Cabinet was willing to
hold the Prime Minister to account and that individual ministers were prepared to put their
principles ahead of their government positions.
Analysis:
The power of the Prime Minister is not absolute, and the Cabinet can play an important role
in limiting their power. By making decisions collectively, exerting influence over policy, and
enforcing the principle of collective responsibility, the Cabinet can ensure that the
government operates in a more balanced and democratic way. These actions can also
promote transparency and accountability, as well as prevent the Prime Minister from making
decisions that are too partisan or ideologically driven. However, it's worth noting that the
Cabinet's ability to limit the power of the Prime Minister is not absolute, and ultimately
depends on the willingness of individual ministers to challenge the Prime Minister and hold
them to account.
2) Explain and analyse three ways in which collective responsibility has come under
pressure since 1979 (2021)
Party polarization: With the rise of party polarization, MPs have become more likely to
publicly dissent from their party leadership on issues they care about. This has made it
harder to maintain collective responsibility within the government, as MPs may feel more
loyalty to their constituents or ideological beliefs than to their party leadership. For example,
, in 2019, several Conservative MPs defied the government's position on Brexit, ultimately
leading to their expulsion from the party.
Evidence: The 2019 Brexit rebellion involved 21 Conservative MPs voting against their
party's whip to block a no-deal Brexit. This was a direct challenge to the government's
position, and resulted in their expulsion from the party. In addition, in 2020, several
Conservative MPs rebelled against the government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic,
with some calling for stricter lockdown measures.
Explanation: The increase in party polarization and MPs' willingness to publicly dissent from
their party leadership has made it more difficult to maintain collective responsibility. This is
because MPs may feel more loyalty to their constituents or ideological beliefs than to their
party leadership, and may be more willing to publicly challenge the government's position.
2. Increased media scrutiny: The growth of 24-hour news and social media has made it
easier for MPs to communicate their dissent to the public, and for the media to report
on it. This has put pressure on the government to respond to dissenting voices, and
has made it more difficult to maintain the appearance of collective responsibility.
Evidence: In 2019, a recording was leaked of a private meeting between Boris Johnson and
Conservative MPs, in which Johnson suggested he would rather "die in a ditch" than ask the
EU for another Brexit extension. This put pressure on the government to take a more
hardline position on Brexit, and made it difficult to maintain the appearance of collective
responsibility.
Explanation: The growth of 24-hour news and social media has made it easier for MPs to
communicate their dissent to the public, and for the media to report on it. This has put
pressure on the government to respond to dissenting voices, and has made it more difficult
to maintain the appearance of collective responsibility.
3. Increasing power of special advisers: Since the 1980s, the number and influence of
special advisers (SPADs) in government has grown significantly. SPADs are
appointed by ministers to provide advice and support, but they are not subject to the
same accountability mechanisms as civil servants. This has made it easier for
ministers to ignore the advice of civil servants and rely on the advice of their own
political appointees, which can undermine the principle of collective responsibility.
Evidence: In 2019, Dominic Cummings, then chief adviser to Boris Johnson, was found to
have breached lockdown rules during the coronavirus pandemic. This led to calls for his
resignation, but he was ultimately able to retain his position, suggesting that he had
significant influence over the Prime Minister.
Explanation: The increasing power of special advisers has made it easier for ministers to
ignore the advice of civil servants and rely on the advice of their own political appointees,
which can undermine the principle of collective responsibility. This is because SPADs are
not subject to the same accountability mechanisms as civil servants, and may be more
willing to provide advice that supports the minister's position, rather than providing impartial
advice.
Individual:
