Using the source, explain how prime ministers relate to their Cabinet colleagues in
government
The prime minister, being the elected leader of the country from the party with a
parliamentary majority, not only holds the most legislative power within the House of
Commons, but also manages the executive branch, organising the structure of governmental
departments and appointing cabinet and junior ministers. The view presented in the source
alludes to the fact that cabinets tend to be dominated by strong and independent minded
prime ministers, who don’t stick to their claims of being champions of returning to traditional
collegiate style cabinet governance, but are also restricted by the current ideological and
political climate.
The first point that can be seen within the source is that the executive tends to be made up
of ‘strong personalities that tend to dominate government’. In contrast to a traditional
collegiate approach in which cabinet business is conducted with formal meetings between
ministers and the prime minister in which their views are considered and issues are agreed
upon in a unified manner, this presents the view that traditionally the opinion of ministers is
of less value and final decisions are almost always dictated by the will of the prime minister
theirselves. The Thatcher years can be seen to have played an instrumental part in
developing this dominant style of government, especially during the later years of her
government, namely post 1987, in which not only did she reshuffle ministers to suit her
agenda, but also frequently ignored them in order to carry out her political duties in the
manner she herself saw fit - for example when she refused to consult foreign secretary
Geoffrey Howe and the chancellor Nigel Lawson prior to the 1988 European council
meeting. By frequently taking an intimidatory and exclusionary approach to relations with her
cabinet, Thatcher could be seen to have set the precedent for dominant prime ministers
which would then repeat themselves during the New Labour years. [and she sacked all the
cabinet dissenters in 1981 to strengthen her position]
On the other hand, the text makes it clear that ‘the extent to which a prime minister works
collaboratively depends of ideological unity & nature of challenges’ - this also can be seen in
the Thatcher years, for while she certainly made her mark as an uncompromising political
figure she was eventually victim to her own unilateral style of government, as her own party
lost faith in her and convinced her to reign in the wake of a likely loss of a second ballot to
Michael Heseltine. A key factor in this was the resignation of Geoffrey Howe in 1990, citing
the prime ministers willingness to override cabinet members opinions following her open
hostility to the governments european policy as the reason for his resignation, which
severely undermined her position as next candidate and highlighted the way in which
ideological disagreements between her and her cabinet actually meant her position as a
strong leader was compromised. Therefore while ministers may get sidelined, they have a
great deal of power within the cabinet to stand against the prime minister if their views are
not fully taken into consideration [or carp from the back benches after they resign, like Howe]
and this has compelled many following to take a more collegiate approach, namely John
Major, her successor.
A key way in which minister have seen to relate to their cabinet is ‘by going behind their
backs’ as stated in the source, and the common use of special advisors, after having been
established by Harold Wilson in 1964, as a way of finding alternative policy advice and thus
government
The prime minister, being the elected leader of the country from the party with a
parliamentary majority, not only holds the most legislative power within the House of
Commons, but also manages the executive branch, organising the structure of governmental
departments and appointing cabinet and junior ministers. The view presented in the source
alludes to the fact that cabinets tend to be dominated by strong and independent minded
prime ministers, who don’t stick to their claims of being champions of returning to traditional
collegiate style cabinet governance, but are also restricted by the current ideological and
political climate.
The first point that can be seen within the source is that the executive tends to be made up
of ‘strong personalities that tend to dominate government’. In contrast to a traditional
collegiate approach in which cabinet business is conducted with formal meetings between
ministers and the prime minister in which their views are considered and issues are agreed
upon in a unified manner, this presents the view that traditionally the opinion of ministers is
of less value and final decisions are almost always dictated by the will of the prime minister
theirselves. The Thatcher years can be seen to have played an instrumental part in
developing this dominant style of government, especially during the later years of her
government, namely post 1987, in which not only did she reshuffle ministers to suit her
agenda, but also frequently ignored them in order to carry out her political duties in the
manner she herself saw fit - for example when she refused to consult foreign secretary
Geoffrey Howe and the chancellor Nigel Lawson prior to the 1988 European council
meeting. By frequently taking an intimidatory and exclusionary approach to relations with her
cabinet, Thatcher could be seen to have set the precedent for dominant prime ministers
which would then repeat themselves during the New Labour years. [and she sacked all the
cabinet dissenters in 1981 to strengthen her position]
On the other hand, the text makes it clear that ‘the extent to which a prime minister works
collaboratively depends of ideological unity & nature of challenges’ - this also can be seen in
the Thatcher years, for while she certainly made her mark as an uncompromising political
figure she was eventually victim to her own unilateral style of government, as her own party
lost faith in her and convinced her to reign in the wake of a likely loss of a second ballot to
Michael Heseltine. A key factor in this was the resignation of Geoffrey Howe in 1990, citing
the prime ministers willingness to override cabinet members opinions following her open
hostility to the governments european policy as the reason for his resignation, which
severely undermined her position as next candidate and highlighted the way in which
ideological disagreements between her and her cabinet actually meant her position as a
strong leader was compromised. Therefore while ministers may get sidelined, they have a
great deal of power within the cabinet to stand against the prime minister if their views are
not fully taken into consideration [or carp from the back benches after they resign, like Howe]
and this has compelled many following to take a more collegiate approach, namely John
Major, her successor.
A key way in which minister have seen to relate to their cabinet is ‘by going behind their
backs’ as stated in the source, and the common use of special advisors, after having been
established by Harold Wilson in 1964, as a way of finding alternative policy advice and thus
