Ep. 231 UK Cabinet - still important?

[Music] Hello and welcome to the A-level Politics Show. I hope that your revision is going super well. At the time of recording we are just a few days out from the paper to exam in 2026. So forgive me if I focus squarely on a question for that paper this time around. I'm going to zero in on the Prime Minister and Executive Topic and particularly upon the cabinet. Since I haven't recorded a pod on this body since 2023, indeed there hasn't been a question on the cabinet since that year, which asked whether how are mainly lied with the Prime Minister rather than the cabinet. The only other occasion when a cabinet question came up was in 2021, a question about whether there had been a return to cabinet government. I'm going to stick with the theme of these two questions and center it firmly on the significance of the cabinet. The question evaluate the view that the cabinet no longer remains an important part of the executive. What is the cabinet you may be thinking? It refers to the group of senior ministers that run government departments and help the Prime Minister to control the political system in the UK. When we refer to cabinet we are thinking about a collective body, so a thoughtful answer could consider that individual cabinet members might be important, particularly the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, but as a group the cabinet perhaps is less significant. I'll focus today on one, whether we have cabinet government or Prime Ministerial government, two, the functions of the cabinet and whether this body still retains them, and three, the circumstances and factors which affect the power of the cabinet. My direction is this, granted there have been repeated attempts to replace cabinet government with Prime Ministerial government, yet these attempts have ultimately failed. While the Prime Minister has usurped some of the traditional functions of the cabinet, it remains an important part of the executive. The extent of this importance depends largely on a number of factors, most likely the power and authority of the Prime Minister. Yet in recent years successive Prime Ministers have lacked authority and thus the role and significance of the cabinet has been retained. Let's focus first then on the supposed shift from cabinet government to Prime Ministerial government. Admittedly there has been a marked shift from the 1960s onwards to one of the Prime Ministerial government. What is a Prime Ministerial government? This is where political circumstances allow the Prime Minister to dominate policymaking and the whole machinery of government. This form of government is associated with that, but it really began with Wilson when he became Prime Minister again in 1974. Prime Ministerial government looks like the following. The Prime Minister controls the agenda of cabinet meetings. They would use television, not just Parliament and the cabinet to get messages across to the public. The cabinet is often packed with the Prime Minister's supporters, so that just sacked the so-called wets. Those who disagree with her, Starma, purged the hard left in the party. His cabinet is full of centrests. The Prime Minister is also seen under Prime Ministerial government as the nation's representative abroad. So Tony Blair is associated with the war in Iraq. The cabinet was not. Brown is associated with measures to tackle poverty in Africa. The cabinet was not. Boris Johnson is associated with Brexit more than any other politician in the cabinet. Yet Prime Ministerial government is frequently undermined. Prime Minister's often faced negative consequences for dominating the cabinet agenda. Starma's refusal to discuss his only leadership in cabinet after the pummeling Labour received in the 2026 local and devolved body elections led to some cabinet members insisting on meeting him in person to convey their concerns. Packing the cabinet with your own supporters only works so far as their ambitions are tamed. Sunak was loyal to Johnson until he decided he wasn't. The cabinet can still shake foreign policy, the chill-cock inquiry into the Iraq war confirmed that it was discussed on at least five occasions in cabinet in the lead up to that conflict. Starma perhaps initially refused to allow us bombers to use UK airfields to attack Iran due to resistance from cabinet members specifically Miliband and Cooper. But we can make the case that cabinet government remains alive and well. So what is cabinet government? It is a system of government where the cabinet, not the Prime Minister, is the central policy making body. This was how government was viewed in the 1960s and later on in Callahan's 1976 to '79 government where he was having to decide on whether and how Britain would accept an IMF loan. For a policy to become official government policy, the cabinet would have to approve it. The Prime Minister in this situation is considered primus into parades that's Latin for first amongst equals. The Prime Minister enjoys the highest status than their colleagues, but they cannot make decisions without them. We see this time and time again from Callahan to Johnson. The COVID response, for example, was debated multiple times in cabinet. Health secretary Matt Hancock and Chancellor Sunak often clashed over the severity of lockdown policies with Prime Minister Johnson often seen as a figure who would seek her middle path. Labour cabinet divides welfare reform, centred on cabinet members concerned about the social effects of cuts and the Treasury ministers who worried about the financial cost of benefits. Starma appeared to back the latter before deciding to give more credence to the former. Thus cabinet government is alive and well because we see ministers regularly debate other members of the cabinet and have real influence over policy. Anything driven from the centre is frequently challenged. Next up, let's consider the functions that have been historically performed by the cabinet. So first up, what are these functions? It's policy formulation, it's crisis management, it's agenda setting, it's approving decisions made elsewhere in government and it's settling departmental disputes. There are a lot of these historical functions are carried out elsewhere and not in cabinet with regards to policy formulation. The reality is that detailed work on individual policies carried out either in government departments or in smaller groups. The ban on smoking and pubs was debated in cabinet, yes, but the actual wording of the text was drafted by the Department of Health. The same can be said of the health and social care bill in 2011 decisions related to finance are tightly controlled by the Treasury and the Chancellor, the decision to lower employee national insurance in the March 2024 budget was decided upon by Prime Minister Sunak and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Labour's decision to raise it for employers later that year was also taken by the Chancellor Rachel Reeves and her team at the Treasury. Prime Minister's take decisions with their advisers rather than the cabinet may surrounded herself with a coterie of advisers that work with her when she was home secretary and Boris Johnson relied in Dominic Cummings, Liz Truss relied heavily on those with close association to the Tufts and Street think tanks who advocated les a fair economics. The Starmer's Tufts dance on immigration owed much to his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. Let's consider crisis management too. In a crisis, the Prime Minister again relies on the small team of experts rather than the full cabinet, Blair relied on close advisers Jeff Hoon, Defense Secretary and Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary during the Iraq War. The Starmer's darling handled the northern rock crisis, emergency responses are usually handled by Cobra, a group that consists of key cabinet members but also of relevant experts pertaining to the type of issue. Cameron convened Cobra after the floods in Cumbria in 2016. Starmer assembled Cobra to help him respond to the far right riots in the summer of 2024 and again in 2026 over the Iran conflict and the mitigation needed owing to the impact on energy costs. The decision on which bills will go through Parliament is also decided elsewhere in the 2010 to 2015 coalition. The Quad met each week to discuss Liberal Democrat and Conservative priorities. This Quad consisted only of David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander. Some have criticized cabinet as being just a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister's policy ideas. The plan to raise the smoking age by one year each year until smoking is effectively banned was very much associated with Rishie Sunak and not his cabinet. The Prime Minister can establish cabinet committees which discuss proposed and in some instances decide policy, Boris Johnson created various COVID-19 committees that were tasked with implementing policies relating to health, economic matters and public services. Starmer's growth and living standards committees jointly chaired by him and his Chancellor Rachel Reeves. In relation to its role as a forum to settle disputes, many of these are resolved outside of cabinet or they are not resolved at all, such as the high profile rivalry between Brown and Blair. Coalition policy seemed to rely on the close personal chemistry between Cameron and Clegg, Hammond and May held tense discussions over whether to scrap the plan rise in national insurance contributions in the Starmer government, many disagreements never reach cabinet level and a resolve through bilateral meetings such as between Energy Secretary Miliband and Chancellor Rachel Reeves on green investment. Starmer relies heavily on Reeves, Lamy and McFadden rather than the whole cabinet body. Yet this example still shows that individual members of the cabinet remain important. Indeed the cabinet still retains a number of formal facts. that ensure it remains important. Let's think about policy formulation. The cabinet often sets out the government's priorities. Employment rights legislation came largely from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rainer, but that was greenlit by the cabinet. Granted matters relating to elections, party funding and wider issues pertaining to democracy came through Steve Reed's department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. But they would have gone nowhere without cabinet approval. This links strongly to the cabinet's role in controlling the parliamentary agenda. Ministers compete to get their legislation through parliament and are often subjected to delay due to funding implications raised by the Treasury. The Education Department, led by Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson, has steered through the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 that guarantees national pay scales for teachers working in academies and extends free school meals. Yet it is the cabinet that is the forum for debates such as these on where the funding will come from. Let's also consider dealing with crises. The cabinet often meets during difficult periods to present a show of unity. After Black Wednesday, when interest rates rocketed in 1992, the cabinet met to agree economic policy. Following Theresa May's elevation to Prime Minister, she let the press into the cabinet meeting in attempt to show the calm and smooth operation of the government following a summer of surprises, not least the Brexit decision. In 2020, key members of the cabinet took prominent roles on the coronavirus outbreak, health secretary Matt Hancock regularly held the government's daily press briefings. In relation to political crisis, the cabinet often shores up the authority of the Prime Minister as shown when senior cabinet members all came out and support Starma over the Mandelson affair. Why did the cabinet still help to settle departmental disputes? Home Secretary John Reed opposed the proposal on banning smoking and pubs. It was through the cabinet that this dispute was resolved. The decision to scrap the educational maintenance allowance was only taken once senior liberal Democrat cabinet members secured extra funding for its replacement, the Bursary. In 2022, health secretary Saadjavid and Chancellor Rishu Sunak argued over the continued funding for free COVID tests. It is likely that the cabinet debated and raised concerns about the Treasury's decision to cut winter fuel payments resulting in a partial policy reversal. Thus, many of the functions of the cabinet are still maintained and thus the cabinet remains important. Finally, let's consider the factors that affect the power of cabinet. There are clearly a set of factors, circumstances that can create the conditions to reduce the power of the cabinet. It is often inversely proportional to the power of the Prime Minister and linked very much to the majority which they enjoy in Parliament. Blair and Thatcher disregarded their cabinets since they had large majorities and one authority through confidence and legitimacy as vote winners. Let's also think about Prime Ministerial preference. Some Prime Ministers prefer to cajole or bully. Thatcher accepted resignations instead of compromising. Heseltine, for example, resigned over Thatcher's decision to award a helicopter contract to an American firm. Theresa May appeared rather secretive and kept negotiation positions on Brexit to herself as far as possible. Johnson relied heavily on advisers and loyal ministers. The next thing to consider is the issue and its importance. While the construction of the Millennium Dome was discussed in cabinet, it was Blair who took the final decision. No cabinet member thought the issue was worth resigning over despite its cost. Sunnack took control over negotiations regarding the Northern Ireland protocol to devise a new agreement with the EU. The new right of the party appeared exhausted when it came to challenging it. Starma has led the UK's response to the second Trump presidency attempting to get as close as possible, adopting a work with the presidency you have mantra. The lack of characters within cabinet can also affect the power of the wider body. Johnson sidelined several influential politicians in the party and promoted those who were loyal to him. The result was initially at least a pliant cabinet. Sunnack was able to weaken the influence of the new rights in his cabinet by using the power of patronage and elevate David Cameron to foreign secretary through making him appear. Starma largely sidelined the left of the party and his appointments to the cabinet. He appears to have promoted those who like him have no real fixed ideology rather than allowing a left wing power based to emerge from within. Characters like Lamy and McFadden are not going to cause too much trouble. Even the soft left is a rather quiet bunch. Cooper is ultimately a team player so too, Bridget Phillips. Yet these same factors and circumstances can create the conditions for a powerful cabinet. Let s return to the power of the Prime Minister and the majority. Admittedly Blair and Thatcher with their huge commons majorities and personal appeal disregard of their cabinets yet were both seriously undermined by their attempts to do so. The former was advised by her cabinet to quit in 1990 and the brownites in cabinet force Blair into setting a date for his departure. Thus a commons majority may force Prime Ministers to overreach and thus so the seeds for an eventual cabinet resurgence. Starma s poor handling of his parties divides over welfare and over the Mandelsen appointment resulted in four ministerial resignations and one from the cabinet where streating in May 2026, seriously damaging his authority. The fallout from the party gates scandal left Johnson seriously weakened multiple ministerial resignations including those of Sunnack and Jarvid brought him down. This goes to show that a majority isn't everything a Prime Minister can just as easily squander favourable circumstances and are often booted out by a resurgent cabinet. In Johnson s case he faced a record number of resignations to force his own departure. Meanwhile Starma needed his cabinet to come out and support him on mass after the Mandelsen scandal failure to do so would have resulted in his removal. Furthermore several Prime Ministers simply never enjoyed such favourable circumstances. For example John Major who was forced to consult with his cabinet to shore up his majority. Meanwhile after 2015 Cameron had a slim majority and after 2017 may had no majority at all and so in both circumstances the cabinet individuals within the cabinet and the backbenchers needed to be consulted more regularly. Let s also consider Prime Ministerial preference. Some Prime Ministers actually prefer to consult their cabinet like Major. Cameron was happy to delegate policymaking to his ministers. For example he allowed Eric Pickles to slash local government budgets and gave Michael Gover free hand in setting education policy. You could argue that Starma is not particularly interested in the details of every policy. Hence why Reina was allowed to steer through the Employment Rights Act. Let s also come back to the issue and its importance. Brown scrapping of the 10P tax ban rate was discussed at the Lenten cabinet because some cabinet members threatened privately to resign. May could not any longer rely on collective ministerial responsibility on the issue of Brexit and was forced therefore to allow free votes on matters such as extending Article 50 in March 2019. Soon act faced difficulty quietening the new right tories in his cabinet over the Rwanda plan which saw Bravenman undermine him in the press and Leanderson resigning. And finally let s think again about the characters within cabinet. Big beasts cannot be ignored. Brown undermined Blair. Blair had to accept an increasing number of MPs who were Brownites in his cabinet instead of Blairites. He could therefore no longer take the loyalty of cabinet for granted. After Cameron secured a majority in 2015, he felt he needed to allow Johnson into that cabinet and to appease the right of the party with a promise to hold a referendum on EU membership, hoping to lessen the alienation over the previous coalition with the Liberal Democrats where Cameron had backed gay marriage. May had to accept leading proponents of the lead campaign into the cabinet all of whom had a fiercely independent streak. People like Davis, Johnson and Fox, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt was seen by the markets as one of the few individuals with economic credibility after the disastrous trust budget. So Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had no choice but to reappoint him to the role when Sunak took over from trust. At the time of recording, Starmer's authority is in tatters and thus he cannot risk a cabinet reshuffle of the magnitude that he perhaps wants. The fear of adding support to his leadership rivals Andy Burnham should he win the Makerfield by election and where streeting the former health secretary. Thus the factors that affect power often lend themselves quite favourably I think to the cabinet rather than the Prime Minister, especially when things start to go wrong. Therefore the cabinet remains a very important body within the executive. Cabinet government is alive and well and the cabinet continues to perform many of its functions on a daily basis. The factors that affect its power often align to support it against the Prime Minister. The most recent of these have been either poor at the job, pathetic at party management and all have ended up loathed by the public. These kinds of conditions lend themselves very favourably to greater cabinet influence. I hope you enjoyed the show peeps. Let me know what you think in the comments. If you have yet to subscribe then you know what to do. Click on the link in the show notes and get the complete back catalog for less than a price of a cup each month. Until the next time though, thank you, over and out. [BLANK_AUDIO]