Considerations behind the appointment of cabinet ministers
1. Political allies who have been guaranteed a post
It is the prerogative power of the PM to choose who will make up their Cabinet. They
might choose people based on their political allegiances and whose post has been
guaranteed due to support in the past.
e.g. In 2010, David Cameron chose George Osborne for the position of Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Cameron had been friends with Osborne for several years before and
they were united around austerity economics after the crash of 2008.
e.g. In 1997, Tony Blair chose Gordon Brown for the position of Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Blair and Brown had previously run together on a twin ticket, in which
Blair would be Prime Minister and allegedly hand the reigns to Brown after a term in
office.
This is significant because by the appointment of close political allies, the principle of
the PM as ‘first among equals’ is neglected in favour of small sofa cabinet type
government.
2. Represent an important section of the party
They might choose someone who can represent an important section of their party.
This can ensure a united government majority due to open and free cabinet
deliberations and significantly limit any conflict within the different factions of the
party.
e.g. In 2019, Boris Johnson appointed Priti Patel as a representative of the right of the
Conservative party to ensure that there was less conflict over his less conservative,
Keynesian plans for levelling up and high public spending.
e.g. In 1997, Tony Blair appointed John Prescott to the role of Deputy Prime Minister
to appease left-wingers in the party after Blair’s move toward New Labour, which
scrapped Clause IV and distanced itself from socialism and trade unionism.
This is significant because it ensures that government is more likely to get through
legislation as there is consensus from across the varying factions in cabinet due to the
principle of collective ministerial responsibility.
3. Figures popular with the public and media
There may be some individuals who are popular figures with the public and media
who are chosen so that the authority of the PM is not undermined by influential
figures in their party from outside the Cabinet.
e.g. In 2016, Theresa May appointed Boris Johnson to the role of Foreign Secretary
as he was one of the ‘big beasts’ who would have stood out against her approach to
the EU withdrawal negotiations.
e.g. In 2017, Michael Gove was brought back into the Cabinet as Environment
Secretary, 3 years after being removed from the post of Education Secretary for
continually upsetting teacher unions. As an outspoken Brexiteer, May did not want
him causing havoc and division within the party over her “softer” approaches to
Brexit like the Norway-plus model.
This is significant because it severely restricts the scrutiny of the PM from within
their own party due to the principle of collective ministerial responsibility.
, Cabinet is no longer a check on prime minister
1. Centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office:
● The increasing concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office has reduced the
Cabinet's ability to act as a check on the Prime Minister.
→ E.g. during Theresa May's tenure as Prime Minister, her chief advisor, Dominic
Cummings, was accused of exerting significant control over the government's
decision-making process, leading to tensions between Cabinet ministers and the
Prime Minister's Office.
→ E.g. under Boris Johnson's leadership, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has grown
in size and influence, with some Cabinet ministers reportedly feeling excluded from
key policy discussions.
2. Partisan loyalty over Cabinet collective responsibility:
● The rise of partisan loyalty within the Cabinet has also weakened the Cabinet's ability
to provide an effective check on the Prime Minister's power.
→ E.g. during the Brexit negotiations, some Cabinet ministers were accused of putting
their loyalty to the Conservative Party over their responsibility to the Cabinet by
publicly defending the Prime Minister's decisions, even when they conflicted with
the Cabinet's position.
→ E.g. during the COVID-19 pandemic, some Cabinet ministers were criticized for
prioritizing party politics over collective decision-making, leading to confusion and
inconsistency in government messaging.
3. Decline in collective decision-making:
● The decline in collective decision-making within the Cabinet has further eroded its
ability to act as a check on the Prime Minister's power.
→ E.g. during Tony Blair's premiership, it was reported that decisions were often made
beforehand by a small group of advisors, leaving Cabinet meetings as a mere
formality.
→ E.g. under Theresa May's leadership, some Cabinet ministers complained of feeling
excluded from key policy discussions, with decisions being made by a small group of
advisors instead of through collective decision-making.
1. Cabinet overload
2. PM can bypass cabinet
1. Political allies who have been guaranteed a post
It is the prerogative power of the PM to choose who will make up their Cabinet. They
might choose people based on their political allegiances and whose post has been
guaranteed due to support in the past.
e.g. In 2010, David Cameron chose George Osborne for the position of Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Cameron had been friends with Osborne for several years before and
they were united around austerity economics after the crash of 2008.
e.g. In 1997, Tony Blair chose Gordon Brown for the position of Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Blair and Brown had previously run together on a twin ticket, in which
Blair would be Prime Minister and allegedly hand the reigns to Brown after a term in
office.
This is significant because by the appointment of close political allies, the principle of
the PM as ‘first among equals’ is neglected in favour of small sofa cabinet type
government.
2. Represent an important section of the party
They might choose someone who can represent an important section of their party.
This can ensure a united government majority due to open and free cabinet
deliberations and significantly limit any conflict within the different factions of the
party.
e.g. In 2019, Boris Johnson appointed Priti Patel as a representative of the right of the
Conservative party to ensure that there was less conflict over his less conservative,
Keynesian plans for levelling up and high public spending.
e.g. In 1997, Tony Blair appointed John Prescott to the role of Deputy Prime Minister
to appease left-wingers in the party after Blair’s move toward New Labour, which
scrapped Clause IV and distanced itself from socialism and trade unionism.
This is significant because it ensures that government is more likely to get through
legislation as there is consensus from across the varying factions in cabinet due to the
principle of collective ministerial responsibility.
3. Figures popular with the public and media
There may be some individuals who are popular figures with the public and media
who are chosen so that the authority of the PM is not undermined by influential
figures in their party from outside the Cabinet.
e.g. In 2016, Theresa May appointed Boris Johnson to the role of Foreign Secretary
as he was one of the ‘big beasts’ who would have stood out against her approach to
the EU withdrawal negotiations.
e.g. In 2017, Michael Gove was brought back into the Cabinet as Environment
Secretary, 3 years after being removed from the post of Education Secretary for
continually upsetting teacher unions. As an outspoken Brexiteer, May did not want
him causing havoc and division within the party over her “softer” approaches to
Brexit like the Norway-plus model.
This is significant because it severely restricts the scrutiny of the PM from within
their own party due to the principle of collective ministerial responsibility.
, Cabinet is no longer a check on prime minister
1. Centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office:
● The increasing concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office has reduced the
Cabinet's ability to act as a check on the Prime Minister.
→ E.g. during Theresa May's tenure as Prime Minister, her chief advisor, Dominic
Cummings, was accused of exerting significant control over the government's
decision-making process, leading to tensions between Cabinet ministers and the
Prime Minister's Office.
→ E.g. under Boris Johnson's leadership, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has grown
in size and influence, with some Cabinet ministers reportedly feeling excluded from
key policy discussions.
2. Partisan loyalty over Cabinet collective responsibility:
● The rise of partisan loyalty within the Cabinet has also weakened the Cabinet's ability
to provide an effective check on the Prime Minister's power.
→ E.g. during the Brexit negotiations, some Cabinet ministers were accused of putting
their loyalty to the Conservative Party over their responsibility to the Cabinet by
publicly defending the Prime Minister's decisions, even when they conflicted with
the Cabinet's position.
→ E.g. during the COVID-19 pandemic, some Cabinet ministers were criticized for
prioritizing party politics over collective decision-making, leading to confusion and
inconsistency in government messaging.
3. Decline in collective decision-making:
● The decline in collective decision-making within the Cabinet has further eroded its
ability to act as a check on the Prime Minister's power.
→ E.g. during Tony Blair's premiership, it was reported that decisions were often made
beforehand by a small group of advisors, leaving Cabinet meetings as a mere
formality.
→ E.g. under Theresa May's leadership, some Cabinet ministers complained of feeling
excluded from key policy discussions, with decisions being made by a small group of
advisors instead of through collective decision-making.
1. Cabinet overload
2. PM can bypass cabinet
