Office of Budget Responsibility:
Three-Line Whip:
Liz Truss (2022)
Personal biography
Liz Truss was born in Oxford in 1975. She came from a left-leaning family, her father was a Maths Professor and her mother was a nurse and teacher. She attended a comprehensive state school and studied PPE at Merton College, Oxford. Whilst at university she was the President of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats. Before entering politics, she worked as an economist and then became Deputy Director of the Reform Think Tank. Truss was elected as an MP for South West Norfolk in 2010. She held a number of ministerial roles having been quickly promoted. These included being Secretary of State for Food and Rural Affairs, Secretary of State for International Trade, Lord Chancellor (and Secretary of State for Justice), Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Foreign Secretary. She defeated Rishi Sunak in the July-September 2022 Conservative Party Leadership contest, winning 57.4% of the votes from Conservative Party Members.
.jpg)
Electoral history as Prime Minister
N/A - Truss was only Prime Minister for 49 days in 2022 and did not contest a General Election. She was the first Prime Minister to not have faced the electorate since Neville Chamberlain (1937-1940).
Key events of Truss' premiership (domestic)
September 6th: Truss becomes Prime Minister succeeding Boris Johnson. Her Cabinet was the first in history in which none of the Great Offices of State were held by a white male.
September 8th: Queen Elizabeth II died and, as PM, Liz Truss led the national mourning. A video emerged of Liz Truss giving a speech in 1994 in which she had called for the abolition of the monarchy.
September 11th: Parliament was suspended for 10 days during the period of national mourning following the death of Elizabeth II.
September 23rd: Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced his mini-budget. This announcement included the abolition of the 45p tax rate and increases in government borrowing to fund these tax cuts. The Office of Budget Responsibility was not given the chance to analyse the measures before they were announced. The pound plummeted on international markets as investors did not have sufficient confidence in viability of the economic plan. The pound hit a 37-year low against the US Dollar.
October 3rd: In response to the market turmoil, parts of the mini-budget were reversed, including the proposed abolition of the 45p tax rate to restore confidence in government finances.
October 14th: Truss sacked Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor and replaced him with Jeremy Hunt. It was clear that she had lost the confidence of the Conservative Party as a whole.
October 19th: The Labour Party tabled an Opposition Day Motion on fracking. As part of her leadership bid, Truss had promised to lift the UK ban on fracking (despite the 2019 manifesto on which they were elected saying that fracking would only be approved if the scientific evidence on its safety was clear). The Conservative Whips ordered their MPs to vote against the Labour motion, saying it was a three-line whip (i.e. any rebels would be suspended from the party). They then informed MPs that the vote would be considered a confidence vote. Truss, concerned at the size of a potential rebellion by anti-fracking MPs, told a senior MP it was no longer going to be a confidence vote. However, the Conservative Whips were not told about this conversation. This led to chaos in the division lobbies, with Conservative MPs unclear what would happen if they rebelled. There were also reports of Conservative MPs being (illegally) physically manhandled into the 'correct' lobbies by other members of the party. Subsequently, the Conservative Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip were reported to have resigned.
October 20th: A day after telling Keir Starmer in Prime Minister’s Questions that she was a ‘fighter not a quitter’, Truss resigned as Conservative Party Leader after being told by Sir Graham Brady, the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, that if she did not resign, she would almost certainly lose a party confidence vote.
.jpg)
Truss maintained a high degree of control
Economic Vision: Truss had a clear, neoliberal economic plan. Whilst it was radical, it was in line with the intentions she stated whilst running for the leadership of the Conservative Party against Rishi Sunak. When she won that election, she was quick in implementing that agenda – albeit with disastrous consequences.
Truss did not maintain significant control
Policy:
-
Economic Turmoil: Truss’s economic policies turned out to be disastrous, leading to turmoil in the financial markets and the collapse of the pound in its international value. She was ultimately forced to reverse almost all her economic plans, despite claiming that she would not U-Turn.
-
Fracking: Truss oversaw one of the most confusing nights in parliamentary history when her MPs were not sure whether the vote on fracking was or was not a confidence vote. Had it been a confidence vote, Truss would have been sending a clear message to MPs that they should back her policy on fracking.
Events:
-
Death of Elizabeth II: Just two days after she became Prime Minister, Queen Elizabeth II died. This led to a 10-day period of national mourning. This may have been politically problematic for Truss, as she carried on working without the civil service in attendance. This removed a potentially moderating force on the speed of her economic transformation.
-
Sacking of Tom Scholar: As soon as becoming Prime Minister, Truss sacked Tom Scholar as Permanent Secretary of the Treasury. It was unusual for a Prime Minister to sack a senior civil servant, particularly based solely on expected policy differences. Such a brutal cull of a potential moderating force on her government may have made her civil servants and special advisors reticent to speak up against her economic policies given the precedent of Scholar’s dismissal.
Media:
-
Strategy: Truss had always been suspicious of the mainstream media and had long used direct methods of communication, like Instagram, to talk to voters. Whilst this worked to some extent while campaigning, it did not translate as well as Prime Minister.
-
Lettuce: At the start of her Premiership the Daily Mirror set up a live webcam of an Iceberg Lettice suggesting it would outlast her time in office following the mini-budget. It indeed did outlast her, and became a symbol of the instability of her premiership. To many, this stunt indicated the lack of seriousness with which a Truss premiership was being treated.
Parliament:
-
Fracking vote Chaos: The vote on fracking on the 19th October was one of the most dramatic divisions in parliamentary history with reports of violence in the division lobbies as Conservative MPs were unsure of the nature of the vote. The whips of Truss’ party did not know what was happening, despite being the ones meant to be enforcing party discipline.
-
Disastrous PMQs: Despite being the only PM in history with a 100% attendance rate at Prime Minister’s Questions, these sessions were exceptionally tough for Truss, with Starmer being able to openly ridicule Truss. For example, on the 19th October 2022:
-
“A book is being written about the Prime Minister’s time in office. Apparently, it is going to be out by Christmas. Is that the release date or the title?”
-
“Last week, the Prime Minister ignored every question put to her. Instead, she repeatedly criticised Labour’s plan for a six-month freeze on energy bills. This week, the Chancellor made it her policy. How can she be held to account when she is not in charge?”
-
“Last week, the Prime Minister stood there and promised absolutely no spending reductions. Conservative Members all cheered. This week, the Chancellor announced a new wave of cuts. What is the point of a Prime Minister whose promises do not even last a week?”
-
“I have the list here: 45p tax cut—gone; corporation tax cut—gone; 20p tax cut—gone; two-year energy freeze—gone; tax-free shopping—gone; economic credibility—gone. Her supposed best friend, the former Chancellor, has gone as well. They are all gone. So why is she still here?”
-
-
Failure to show up to an Urgent Question: On the 17th of October, an Urgent Question was asked about U-Turns made on the economy and the replacement of Kwai Kwarteng as Chancellor. Truss did not show herself. Instead, the question was answered by Penny Mordaunt. This made Truss look weak, especially when Mordaunt repeated an assertion by Labour MP Stella Creasey that “The PM is not under a desk”.
Cabinet:
-
Appointments: Truss appointed key allies to prominent positions in her Cabinet, including Therese Coffey as Deputy Prime Minister and Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor. However, she did little to include a range of voices in her Cabinet and there were few in the Cabinet who might be considered to be One Nation Conservatives with a more moderate view on free-markets.
-
Kwarteng’s dismissal: The sacking of her close political ally and Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng on October 14th showed her weakness, particularly when she appointed Jeremy Hunt who had a substantially different economic outlook to her. Kwarteng was seen by many to be a sacrificial lamb, despite policies like the 45p tax rate cut being pushed by Truss more than Kwarteng.
-
Lack of consultation: Truss did not consult her Cabinet about the key decisions she was taking; the 45p tax rate cut was not discussed with her Cabinet before it was announced. This meant that the backlash of the decision fell solely on Truss and Kwarteng and could not be sold as a collective decision.
An overall assessment of Truss
There can be no denying that Liz Truss’ premiership was one of the most disastrous in UK political history. Many, including Liz Truss, have blamed the reaction of the Bank of England for the failure of her premiership. However, Truss made radical decisions very early in her premiership, without securing her position first. She had no popular mandate to rely on, making this an even more risky manoeuvre. As Anthony Seldon wrote in his book Truss at 10: How not to be Prime Minister “Prime Ministers need one quality above all: judgement. Truss lacked it, and she hurtled the government with unnecessary haste into bold polic[ies] that were premature and ill-conceived.”
2.3.1 - The structure, roles and powers of the executive
Executive: The branch of government that holds responsibility for the running of a country on a day-to-day basis. In Britain, Keir Starmer is head of the Executive Branch.
Core Executive: The term given for the central decision-making body of the British political system, including the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Senior Civil Service.
Prime Minister: The common title for the Head of the Executive in the UK. Prime Minister was not traditionally a constitutional title, but developed to become so.
Conventions: Conventions are elements of the UK Constitution that are expected to take place but are not codified or specified. They form an important part of UK constitutional practice.
First Lord of the Treasury: The traditional title of the Prime Minister. It is still the title that is on the front of the door to Number 10 Downing Street.
Primus Inter Pares: The Latin term meaning ‘first among equals’. This was traditionally the way that the Prime Minister was viewed in Britain, but it is no longer really applicable.
COBRA: Standing for 'Cabinet Office Briefing Room A', this is the emergency response centre of the UK government.
Royal Prerogative: A number of privileges and powers of the monarch, most of which have now been passed to the Prime Minister and members of the government. For example, the Prime Minister appoints the Cabinet on behalf of the monarch.
Patronage: The ability of someone to give someone else a position of power. The UK Prime Minister has enormous powers of patronage.
King's Speech: The yearly address by the Monarch to Parliament. This speech is written by the Government and lays out it legislative agenda.
State Opening of Parliament: The yearly event whereby the King officially opens Parliament for the new session.
Cabinet: The body made up of the Heads of Government departments in the UK which makes collective government decisions.
Motions of No Confidence: A vote in Parliament whereby it is decided if the Prime Minister and Government has the confidence of Parliament. If a vote of no-confidence is lost, the Government must resign or call a new election.
Backbenchers: An MP that is not a member of the government or official opposition. They are called Backbenchers because they usually sit on the backbenches in the House of Commons.
Rebellions: Votes by an MP against their parties official position and against the orders of their whips.
Snap Election: An election called earlier that the date required. This is a power again held by Prime Ministers after the repeal of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (2011).
Minister of State: Ministers of State are the middle rank of Government Ministers. There are normally a number of Ministers of State in any government department.
Great Office of State: The term given for the four highest offices in the UK: Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Only James Callaghan has ever held all four.
Downing Street Machine: A term given for the political operation that takes place within Downing Street, in support of the Prime Minister. This machine has developed significantly in recent decades.
Fusion of Powers: A system where different branches of government can be intermingled. For example, the Prime Minister is Head of the Executive but, as an MP, is also a member of the legislature. This arguably gives them enormous power.
Salisbury Convention: A convention in the UK constitution under which the House of Lords do not oppose bills that were clearly part of the Government’s manifesto.
Financial Privilege: The privilege that belongs to the House of Commons that means only they can agree to bills that raise taxes or change spending.
Secondary/ Delegated Legislation: Laws that are created by an individual or body under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament. This type of legislation allows for more detailed rules and regulations to be made without the need for a new Act of Parliament.
Primary Legislation: Primary legislation sets out broad principles of an issue, and it often grants powers to create secondary or delegated legislation for more detailed rules and regulations.
Secretary of State: The senior minister in a government department. Secretaries of State also attend Cabinet.
Minister of State: Ministers of State are the middle rank of Government Ministers. There are normally a number of Ministers of State in any government department.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary State: The lowest rank of Government Minister.
Ministerial Departments: A government department, which is headed by a Minister, for example the Department of Transport.
Non-Ministerial Departments: A government department which is headed by a Civil Servant, for example, HM Revenue and Customs.
Executive Agency: An agency that is headed by a Civil Servant but is linked to a government department. For example, the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) is linked to the Department of Transport.
What is the executive?
R.A.W. Rhodes said "the term Core Executive refers to ...organisations and procedures which coordinate government policies and act as final arbiters of conflict between different parts of the government machine."
The term ‘executive’ comes from the Latin ex sequi meaning to ‘carry out. The Core Executive is the web of institutions, networks and relations that link the Prime Minister, Cabinet, Cabinet Committees and Senior Civil Service. The Core Executive is the day-to-day decision making (executive) hierarchy in the governance of Britain. The Head of the Executive is the Prime Minister.
How did the office of the Prime Minister evolve?
The position of Prime Minister is based largely on convention. It began to be defined between 1714 and 1727 when the German-speaking King George I stopped attending cabinet meetings. In his place, the First Lord of the Treasury chaired meetings and became the ‘Prime Minister’, as he represented the King in Cabinet.
The first Prime Minister is generally considered to be Robert Walpole [right] (1721-1742), although the first Prime Minister in modern terms was probably Robert Peel (1841-1846).
Traditionally, the Prime Minister was seen as Primus Inter Pares (Latin for ‘First among Equals'). However, increasingly throughout the 19th and 20th Century Prime Ministers became more dominant figures over the Government and the title Primus Inter Pares can no longer really be applied to them.
What are the roles of the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister has many roles. As a result of Britain not having a codified constitution, this is sometimes open to debate. However, it is generally agreed that the Prime Minister has five key roles:
Chief Executive: The Prime Minister is the day-to-day head of the executive and deals with any matters arising and makes decisions on behalf of the rest of the Government. For example, in 2024 Keir Starmer chaired COBRA meetings to direct the response to race riots following the murder of young children in Stockport.
Chief Legislator: The Government is drawn from the dominant party in the Commons and the Prime Minister is the head of that party. Therefore, legislation mainly emanates from the Executive. Between the 2015-2024 elections, there were 357 bills that received Royal Assent and became Acts of Parliament. Of these, 255 (71.4%) were Government Bills. In addition, most laws are made as Secondary Legislation, rather than primary legislation. These are powers given by Parliament to the Executive. These are not as heavily scrutinised as Parliamentary legislation, giving the Government enormous power. For example, in 2023 there were 57 Acts of Parliament passed, but 1140 statutory instruments.
Chief Diplomat: The Prime Minister represents Britain internationally, for example attending meetings of the G7/G20 or other international bodies like the UN and NATO. In July 2024, days after being elected as PM, Keir Starmer represented the UK at the 2024 NATO summit in Washington DC.
Chief Government Spokesperson: The Prime Minister is the person in the Government who is most visible to the general population. Therefore, the Prime Minister has an important role in selling the Government’s message to the population, particularly prior to a General Election. For example, throughout the coronavirus pandemic, Boris Johnson gave speeches to the nation from 10 Downing Street to update them on the pandemic and to answer questions from the media and the public.
Party Chief: The Prime Minister has to remain as head of their party. For example, at each year’s Party Conference the Prime Minister will give the keynote (most important) address. For example, Keir Starmer's speech at the 2024 Labour Party conference in Liverpool outlined his plans for "national renewal".
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
Examples of the PM taking emergency action
-
Tony Blair committed British forces to action in Kosovo in 1998 to protect the Muslim population that was being persecuted and at risk of genocide by the Yugoslav Serb government.
-
Tony Blair returned to London following the 2005 "7/7" terrorist bombings in order to chair COBRA meetings and coordinate an emergency response.
-
Theresa May chaired COBRA meetings in 2017 after a spate of terrorist attacks in the UK, such as the attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester.
-
Theresa May ordered UK air forces to bomb Syria in 2018 without consulting Parliament after chemical attacks were carried out on Syrian civilians by the Bashar Assad regime.
What are the sources of the Prime Minister's power?
There are four key sources of the Prime Minister's power:
1. Powers given to the PM under the Royal Prerogative: The reigning monarch retains (in theory and law) the power to carry out the functions of the Head of State, such as commanding the armed forces. In reality, Britain is a representative democracy and these powers are carried out by the Prime Minister on the King's (or Queen's) behalf and are called "Royal Prerogative" powers.
Examples of the Prime Minister exercising Royal Prerogative powers
-
Deploying armed forces: E.g. Theresa May in Syria (2018).
-
Appointing government ministers: E.g. Boris Johnson appointing Liz Truss as Foreign Secretary (2021).
-
Reorganising government departments: E.g. Theresa May created the 'Department for Exiting the European Union' in 2016; Boris Johnson dissolved it in 2020 after Brexit.
-
Appointing Peers to the House of Lords: E.g. Boris Johnson made Evgeny Lebedev a peer despite concerns from MI5 that said his links to the Russian government made him a serious security risk.
-
Calling a General Election: E.g. Rishi Sunak announced the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new election on the 22nd May 2024.
A* Zone: The changing face of royal prerogative powers
In the Medieval Period, what are now the Royal Prerogative powers were exercised exclusively by the Monarch. In the 17th Century, following the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, limits were placed on these powers. For example, the Bill of Rights (1689) laid a clear foundation of what parliament’s powers were and effectively established the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. By the 19th century, the principle of ‘constitutional monarchy’ was firmly established in the UK. This means that the monarchy acts only on the advice of their Ministers. Whilst the monarch still technically possessed many of the powers they did in the Medieval Period, in practice these powers were exercised by an elected government.
Throughout the 20th century, the concept of ‘constitutional monarchy’ became more entrenched. For example, in 1914, George V took legal advice on whether he could withhold Royal Assent from the Government of Ireland Act (1914). Today, it would be unthinkable for the King to take legal advice on withholding Royal Assent from a properly passed piece of parliamentary legislation.
In the 21st century, Royal Prerogative powers have been further reduced. Some traditionally Royal Prerogative powers have been put on a statutory footing. For example, the right of the PM to ratify certain international treaties was changed by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act to mean that they must be laid before Parliament for 21 days during which the Commons can respond to them.
In addition, recent years have seen the courts play a greater role in scrutinising Royal Prerogative powers. In the Miller cases, the Supreme Court found that government actions were ultra vires, even though they had been handled under Royal Prerogative powers:
Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017): This was a case bought after the government attempted to trigger Article 50 (the mechanism for leaving the EU) under their Royal Prerogative powers. This was challenged by Gina Miller who argued that triggering Article 50 required an Act of Parliament. The government argued that the case was not justiciable, but the Supreme Court ruled that not only was it justiciable, but that parliamentary sovereignty meant that Royal Prerogative powers could not be used to alter domestic law that had been sent by Parliament without explicit parliamentary approval. As such, the case limited the scope of Royal Prerogative powers.
Miller v Prime Minister (2019): This case was bought after the Monarch, Elizabeth II, prorogued Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister. The petitioners (including Gina Miller) argued that this advice was unlawful because it was given to try to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit. Again, the Government argued that the issue was not justiciable. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the case was justiciable and that the advice given to the Monarch was unlawful. They therefore ordered that the prorogation was considered ‘null and void’. This sets a precedent of underlining that Royal Prerogative powers can only be deployed when they are not see to undermine the functioning of Parliament.
2. Powers that emerged through convention: Many of the Prime Minister’s powers have grown and developed over a number of years. For example, the Prime Minister is treated with deference and respect by other Ministers, even though traditionally they are 'only' Primus Inter Pares.
3. Powers based on being leader of the largest party: The Prime Minister normally has the support of their party both within the Houses of Parliament and across the country. The fact that the party is the largest in the House of Commons also gives them a popular mandate from the people of Britain.
4. Individual personality and decisions: Some Prime Ministers have been able to extend their power through the power their personalities (for example decisiveness, charisma, oratory, etc.)
What are the powers of the Prime Minister?
_(SO'24).jpg)
1. The power of patronage: The Prime Minister appoints Government Ministers and dismisses them. He is also in charge of Reshuffling the Cabinet, thereby being able to promote and demote his Ministers. This gives him power because they are beholden to the PM for their position. The Prime Minister also appoints (i) Senior Civil Servants, (ii) Senior Bishops in the Church of England, (iii) Peers in the House of Lords. Therefore, the career advancement of a large group of people depends on the patronage (political support for specific offices) of the Prime Minister.
2. Power over Cabinet, Government and Civil Service:
In addition to the Prime Minister’s power to appoint, dismiss, promote and demote Cabinet Members, there are also significant other powers that they have over it. They:
-
Control the number and timing of Cabinet Meetings.
-
Control Cabinet Agendas and Minutes.
-
Control who speaks in Cabinet.
-
Decide the make-up and structure of Cabinet Committees.
Prime Ministers also decide on the broader make-up of the Government, for instance deciding how many Ministers there will be in each particular department.
3. Party leadership and Parliament: The Prime Minister is the indisputable leader of their political party. They have an authority over their party members because they have the power of patronage over them. Furthermore, criticism of the leader is likely to be seen as criticism of the party and hurt the party as a whole.
4. Power over public policy and spending: The Prime Minister, as head of the party with a majority or plurality in the House of Commons, also has power over the parliamentary agenda. The Prime Minister is responsible for drafting the King's Speech which is presented at the State Opening of Parliament. This is the formal announcement of the Government’s legislative agenda for the year.
5. Power as a figure on the world stage: By their position as a leader of a G7 and P5 (UN Security Council) country, the Prime Minister has an authority that other politicians do not have.
6. Prerogative powers: The ability to act (e.g. calling an election) without the approval of Parliament because of powers that are handed to them directly from the Monarch. This enables the Prime Minister to, for example, order military action.
In December 2019, after calling a snap election, Boris Johnson won an election with an 80-seat majority, the largest majority since 2001. His showpiece Brexit deal soon passed the House of Commons by 358-254 and then passed the Lords without amendment, confounding those who said that his hard-line approach to Brexit would not work. The furore over the prorogation of Parliament felt a long time ago and the political stage was set for him to begin a wide-ranging agenda. However, just three months later, he was beset by the social, political and economic challenges bought by COVID-19. It was amazing that his whole premiership will likely be defined by a global pandemic that started thousands of miles away in China. Perhaps no political event in History better encapsulates Macmillan’s adage “events dear boy, events”.
What are the limits on the Prime Minister?
1. Limits of the Cabinet: There is no formal mechanism whereby the Cabinet can remove a Prime Minister, however the Cabinet is a check on the Prime Minister. One reason is that the Cabinet includes major figures from within the Prime Minister’s party, who are often potential rivals to the Prime Minister. In addition, if a Prime Minister does not include a major figure in the Cabinet they may be seen as an outsider and alternative leader, who may take the government in a separate and better direction if they were to become leader. One of the most common ways a Prime Minister loses power is after losing the support of their Cabinet.
In November 1990, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister. While she won the first round of the Conservative leadership contest with 54.8%, she was convinced by key members of her Cabinet that she should step down. These included a number of previously very loyal Cabinet members. This is a good example of how losing the support of the Cabinet can ultimately lead to the end of a premiership.
2. Limits of Parliament: Although the Prime Minister is normally able to dominate Parliament, this is not always the case. Sometimes the Prime Minister can suffer embarrassing defeats in Parliament, especially when they are a minority/coalition government, or only have a narrow majority. However, even governments with strong majorities in Parliament can be defeated on issues where MPs disagree strongly with the Prime Minister.
Theresa May (CON): Theresa May’s suffered the biggest debate in modern parliamentary history when her first Brexit Deal was defeated by 230 votes in January 2019.
David Cameron (CON): One of David Cameron’s most prominent defeats in the House of Commons occurred in August 2013 when the House of Commons voted 286-272 against authorising the use of military force in Syria. Overall, David Cameron was defeated six times in the Commons between 2010 and 2015.
Gordon Brown (LAB): Gordon Brown’s most significant defeat in the House of Commons occurred in April 2009 when the House of Commons voted 276-246 with a Liberal Democrat motion to allow more Gurkhas to stay in the UK. Overall, Gordon Brown lost three times in the Commons between 2007 and 2010.
Tony Blair (LAB): Tony Blair’s most significant Commons defeat came when an attempt to be able to hold Terror Suspects for 90 days without trial was defeated by 322-291 votes. Overall, Tony Blair only lost four times in the Commons between 1997 and 2005.
3. Motions of No Confidence: In extreme examples, the PM might be removed from their position through a vote of no confidence. It is a key principle of parliamentary democracies that the Government (which is not directly elected by the people) can only hold power if it can exhibit that it has the support of the elected Parliament. Voting in motions of no confidence tends to go straight down party lines, since MPs will not want to collapse their own government (even if they disapprove of the Prime Minister!) in circumstances that might lead to a General Election and the loss of their own seats. This can clearly be seen in the breakdown (right) for the 1979 vote of no confidence in James Callaghan. Nevertheless, the very event of a motion of no confidence may damage a Prime Minister's position irreparably and contribute to a resignation shortly afterwards (e.g. Chamberlain in 1940, May in 2019 and Johnson in 2022).
.jpg)
Examples of Votes of No Confidence
Theresa May (16th January 2019): Survived by 325 to 206 (but resigned in May of the same year).
John Major (23rd July 1993): Survived by 339 to 229. Major had called this Motion of No Confidence in himself to 'call the bluff' of Conservative MPs who opposed his leadership.
James Callaghan (28th March 1979): Lost by 311-310, leading to the 1979 General Election.
'Party' votes of no confidence vs 'parliamentary' votes of no confidence
A Parliamentary Motion of No Confidence is a vote on whether the House of Commons has confidence in the government. It is an important mechanism in a parliamentary democracy to ensure that the government retains its legitimate right to continue to govern. This is very different to a party vote of no confidence!
A party confidence vote is when a political party tests the confidence that they have in their leader. If the party leader loses that vote they will be removed from their position. Of course, in the case that the leader is also the Prime Minister, this would also result in a new Prime Minister being required.
There are different rules within different parties for triggering a confidence motion:
-
In the Conservative Party a vote of no confidence will be held in the leader if 15% of Conservative MPs submit a letter of no confidence to the Chair of the 1922 Committee. This is currently Bob Blackman. These letters are secret and Blackman does not discuss the number until the threshold is reached.
-
In the Labour Party if anyone wants to challenge the sitting leader than they need the backing of 20% of all Labour MPs and MEPs. If the leadership is vacant, this drops to 15%.
-
Liberal Democrats can trigger a leadership election if a simple majority of Liberal Democrat MPs pass a vote of no confidence or if 75 local parties request a leadership election.
Some recent party motions of confidence in a current Prime Minister include:
2022 – Boris Johnson: Following the Sue Gray Report into Partygate the number of Conservative MPs who had publicly called for him to resign or publicly announced that they have submitted a letter of no confidence was over 40. On June 6th, the 1922 Chairman, Sir Graham Brady, announced that the number had reached the threshold of 54 letters and that a party vote of confidence would be held that same day. A total of 58.8% of Conservative MPs declared they had confidence in Johnson, and he was therefore able to avoid resignation. However, the number who voted against him inflicted damage from which he was never likely to recover.
2018 – Theresa May: In 2018 Theresa May was struggling to unite her party over the right approach to Brexit. Sir Graham Brady announced that enough Conservative MPs had written to him to trigger a confidence vote. When it was held, May survived by 200 to 117 votes. However, this critically weakened her as she then headed into the Commons vote on her Brexit deal which was lost by a record majority of 230 votes.
4. Limits of Party: The Prime Minister must be able to keep their party's backbenchers (non-government MPs) onside. Rebellions by backbench MPs weaken the Prime Minister's authority and can sometimes lead to the Prime Minister's removal if they are particularly widespread.
Examples of backbench rebellions
Boris Johnson (CON): In December 2021 Boris Johnson suffered a rebellion by 99 Conservative MPs on his plan to introduce ‘Plan B’ COVID measures.
Theresa May (CON): In her record-breaking defeat by 230 votes on her first Brexit Deal a total of 118 Conservative MPs voted against it.
David Cameron (CON): David Cameron’s biggest Backbench Rebellion came in October 2012. 53 Tory MPs, led by Mark Reckless, joined with Labour to demand a real-terms cut in the EU budget. This was a major embarrassment to David Cameron.
Gordon Brown (LAB): Towards the end of his premiership Gordon Brown suffered a number of damaging rebellions. Over the course of two and half years as Prime Minister 137 Labour MPs voted against him at least once. The most famous example was a loss on the rights of Gurkhas to settle in the UK.
Tony Blair (LAB): The biggest rebellion that Tony Blair faced during his ten years in office was over the Iraq War. In February 2003 122 Labour MPs said that the UK did not have a case for war in Iraq. Despite this, the House of Commons overall voted in favour of military action.
John Major (CON): John Major faced a number of Backbench Rebellions, most notably over the issue of Britain’s relationship with the EU. In 1995 he even resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party and ran in a leadership contest. He famously said “now put up, or shut up” to his rivals. The biggest rebels came over the Maastricht Treaty that saw the European Union formed out of the European Economic Community (EEC). John Major had the whip withdrawn from 9 MPs in the context of this dispute.
5. Limits by events: Events are also an important limit on Prime Ministers. There are many factors that a Prime Minister cannot control. When the mid-20th century Conservative PM Harold Macmillan was asked what he most feared by an advisor, he famously responded “events dear boy, events”.
A* Zone: The benefits of a party vote of no confidence?
Whilst potentially terminal, a confidence vote can turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Under Conservative Party rules if a leader faces a party vote of confidence and wins, they are then protected from facing a similar vote for a period of 12 months. This can be helpful to a Prime Minister. For example, Theresa May won her confidence vote in December 2018. However, less than a month later, she lost her Brexit vote by the largest modern majority. If she had faced a party confidence vote at this time, she may well have lost. However, she remained as Prime Minister until July 2019 when she stepped down.
In 1995 during turmoil within his part over the issue of Europe, John Major resigned as Conservative Party Leader and famously told his rivals to ‘put up, or shut up’. He subsequently ran against the Thatcherite, John Redwood, in the leadership contest and comfortably won. This helped to reassert his legitimacy as party leader and challenges to his authority lessened prior to the 1997 General Election.
The structure of the executive
The Executive in the UK is made up of a number of key components:
-
Prime Minister: The Prime Minister is Head of the Executive. Officially still called the First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister is responsible for overseeing all government departments within the UK. They are also the ‘Minister for the Civil Service’.
-
Cabinet: The Cabinet is made up of the most senior members of the Government. It is appointed by the Prime Minister. This includes the Secretaries of State who run different government departments. Cabinet regularly meets to collectively discuss government policy.
-
Ministers: These are people chosen by the Prime Minister from the House of Commons or House of Lords, who work within government departments to carry out the government’s policies.
-
Government Departments and Agencies: These are bodies that carry out the government’s policies. For example, the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA), which approves and manages driving and vehicle licenses, is a government department that is answerable to Department for Transport.
-
Non-Departmental Public Bodies: These are bodies that are not directly accountable to a government minister but support the government in carrying out policy. An example of this the Environment Agency which is sponsored by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but is independently tasked with auditing and supporting government actions regards the environment.
How is the Cabinet organised?
The Cabinet is made up of 22 members, including the Prime Minister. Currently, the Cabinet is:
The following people also attend Cabinet Meetings:
Members of Cabinet can be drawn from either House of Parliament. Currently, every Cabinet Member apart from Baroness Evans, the Leader of the House of Lords, is currently from the House of Commons. However, by convention, it is now expected that the Great Offices of State (Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary) sit in the House of Commons. Lord Salisbury (retired in 1902) was the last Prime Minister to sit in the House of Lords; while there have been no Lords among the Great Officers of State in the 21st century with the exception of Lord Cameron (Foreign Secretary 2023-2024).
The Position of Deputy Prime Minister
Unlike in the USA, there is no ‘line of succession’ to take over if a tragedy were to befall the Prime Minister. The position of Deputy Prime Minister is not a permanent one. In fact, it is only filled at the Prime Minister’s discretion. It was vacant in the following periods:
• 1963-1979
• 1990-1195
• 2007-2010
• 2015-2021
During these periods if the Prime Minister was killed or indisposed, the next most senior Minister and the person who would act as leader of the executive would be the First Secretary of State.
What is the 'Prime Minister's Office'?
In the UK, there is no ‘Prime Minister’s Department’. This is in stark contrast to the Executive Office of the President (EXOP) in the US, which gives an enormous staff to President of the United States operating out of the West Wing. Instead, in the UK, the Prime Minister’s Office comes under the formal remit of the Cabinet Office and more broadly the so-called 'Downing Street Machine'.
The PM's Office in the UK is made up of a number of parts:
Principal Private Secretary: A Principal Private Secretary is the individual civil servant who is the most senior in any government department apart from the Permament Secretary. The Prime Minister’s Office, despite not being a formal Government Department, also has a Principal Private Secretary. The PM’s Principal Private Secretary is responsible for managing the PM’s office and coordinating Number 10 with other Government Departments. Currently the Principal Private Secretary in Number 10 is Ninjeri Pandit.
Other Private Secretaries: The PM will also have other Private Secretaries for different critical areas of their brief. These include a Private Secretary for Parliamentary Affairs and a Private Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Parliamentary Private Secretary: The PM will also have a Parliamentary Private Secretary. This is an individual who sits in the House of Commons and acts an unpaid advisor to the PM. In this role, they are expected to act as the “eyes and ears” of the PM in the House of Commons and assist the PM in their parliamentary duties. They are an important go-between in dealings between the Prime Minister and their backbench MPs. Whilst unpaid, being the PM’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is a prestigious role and many who hold it often go on to be significant political figures. The current Parliamentary Private Secretary is Chris Ward.
Chief of Staff: The Chief of Staff is a senior political appointment who oversees the Prime Minister’s Office and advises the PM on their political strategy. As an unelected figure who is not part of the civil service, the Chief of Staff is accountable directly to the Prime Minister which gives them significant power. In recent years, there have been a number of highly controversial Chiefs of Staff in Downing Street. The most notable of these was Dominic Cummings between July 2019 and November 2020 (whilst not formally Chief of Staff, he was widely recognised as such). The current Chief of Staff is Morgan McSweeney who replaced Sue Gray in October 2024.
A* Zone: Sue Gray as Chief of Staff
Sue Gray was the Chief of Staff for the Labour Government from July 2024 to October 2024. Her position was scrutinised closely and was controversial for a number of reasons.
-
Gray had transitioned from being a senior civil servant to an inherently political role. She was appointed Labour Chief of Staff in September 2023 (becoming Downing Street Chief of Staff after the July 2024 General Election). As a civil servant she was required to maintain neutrality and political impartiality. Her sudden switch to an inherently political role raised concerns over the politicisation of the civil service.
-
Towards the end of her civil service career, Gray had been tasked with leading the investigation into the Partygate scandal. Her report, which said that COVID-19 lockdown rules had been widely ignored, ultimately were a significant reason that the government of Boris Johnson feel. As such, for her to immediate move to a position of seniority within the Labour Party added further question marks over her impartiality whilst she had previously been a civil servant.
-
As Chief of Staff, Gray reportedly earned more than the Prime Minister. This was criticised in the media, particularly after reports that she had refused a lesser salary (to combat the likely public criticism).
-
Whilst Chief of Staff, there were numerous reports of power struggles taking place within Number 10. In particular, it was reported that there were two camps emerging, one under Gray and one under Morgan McSweeney, the then Head of Political Strategy. The newspaper reports about this tension were taking the focus away from major government announcements,.
Policy Units: There are a number of policy units that operate out of Number 10. Most notably:
-
The Number 10 Policy Unit was established in 1974 under Harold Wilson and provides the PM with political and strategic advice. It is staffed by political advisors, civil servants and experts. For example, the National Living Wage policy introduced by the Government in 2015 was shaped by the Number 10 Policy Unit. The policy was part of broader government efforts to improve living standards and reduce inequality.
-
The Policy and Implementation Unit was formed in 2011. It is staffed by civil servants and aims to ensure that the government’s policies are being effectively delivered.
Communications Team: A specialist team manages the Prime Minister’s public communications. It is led by a Director of Communications and supported by a Press Secretary whose job is to brief the media. The most famous Director of Communications is undoubtedly Alistair Campbell who was Director of Communications under Tony Blair from 1997-2003.
Special Advisors (SPADs): Special Advisors are appointed by the Prime Minister (and other Ministers) to advise on particular areas of policy. As they are not civil servants, they are accountable directly to their Minister. There was a 236% growth in the numbers of SPADs in government since between 1997-2024.
Other Civil Servants: The PM has a dedicated team of civil servants supporting the operation of government. This includes the Cabinet Secretary, the most senior civil servant in the country. Unlike other government departments, the Prime Minister’s Office does not have a Permanent Secretary as the Cabinet Secretary fulfils that role. The Cabinet Office, which supports the Prime Minister, has over 2,000 staff.
What is the government's role in legislation?
The Government has the dominant role in legislation. This is because there is a fusion of powers. This means that the legislature is dominated by the Executive. In most cases, the Government will have a clear majority in the House of Commons enabling it to push through its legislative agenda. Most bills that become laws are Government Bills. In addition, although the Government do not have a majority in the House of Lords there are a number of mechanisms that protect their authority over legislation:
-
The Salisbury Convention prevents the House of Lords from voting against anything at Second Reading that was in the Government’s most recent election manifesto.
-
The House of Commons has Financial Privilege, meaning that the Lords do not vote against the Budget or other Money Bills (the so-called 'Money Bills Convention').
-
The Parliament Act (1949) limits the willingness of the House of Lords to stand up to the House of Commons, since they know they can be overridden by the House of Commons in a deadlock.
The power of the Government is particularly strong over Secondary/ Delegated Legislation. This is legislation that leads on from Primary Legislation and allows the government to operate under powers delegated to it by the Primary Legislation. The best examples of this can be found recently during COVID-19.
Examples of Secondary Legislation during COVID-19
Primary Legislation: Coronavirus Act (2020) - passed by Parliament.
Secondary Legislation arising from this:
-
Statutory Sick Pay (Suspension of Waiting Days and General Amendment Regulations (2020): This allowed for the waiting period for SSP to be removed during COVID-19.
-
Local Government and PCC (Postponement of Elections and Referendums) Regulations (2020): This allowed for elections to be delayed due to COVID-19.
-
Residential Tenancies: Protection from Eviction Regulations (2020): This extended the protection for tenants from being removed from their houses by Landlords during COVID-19.
How are government departments organised?
Government departments are headed by a Secretary of State. However, there are three hierarchical ranks of Government Minister:
-
Secretary of State (Cabinet Member).
-
Minister of State.
-
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
The lower Ministerial ranks often serve as a 'testing ground' for MPs, before they are allowed to become a Secretary of State and Cabinet Minister. There are 23 Ministerial Departments, 22 Non-Ministerial Departments and over 300 Executive Agencies and other public bodies. Ministerial Departments are those headed by a Government Minister.
Non-Ministerial Departments are those headed by Civil Servants, without a Minister directly overseeing them. Executive Agencies are semi-independent organisations set up by the Government to carry out some of their responsibilities. An example of this is the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency), which is an Executive Agency of the Department of Transport.
The Transport Ministry
-
Heidi Alexander (Secretary of State for Transport)
-
Lord Hendy (Minister of State for Transport - Rail)
-
Mike Kane (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport - Aviation, Maritime and Security)
-
Lilian Greenwood (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport - Future of Roads)
-
Simon Lightwood (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport - Local Transport)
Example of a Minister's responsibilities - Simon Lightwood:
-
Local transport (buses, taxis, private hire vehicles, light rail)
-
Local transport decarbonisation
-
Local transport accessibility, and cross-cutting transport accessibility
-
Tackling violence against women and girls on the transport network
-
Active travel
-
E-scooters
-
Modal shift
-
Regions and devolution
-
The department’s relationship with London, including TFL
-
Transport connectivity across the union
-
Integrated transport strategy
How do Government departments differ from each other?
Government departments differ in a number of ways. Some are large and some are small and they all have a different variety of remits and tasks. The most obvious ways a department will differ from others are:
-
Number of ministers in a department.
-
For example, the Cabinet Office has 6 Ministers; the Treasury 7; and the Scottish Office 2.
-
-
The size of the department's budget [see 2023-2024 spending below].
-
The number of laws instigated by each department.
-
Inevitably, the Treasury passes the highest amount of laws in an average year. This is because things like changes in the tax code are written into law and economic mechanisms change regularly, especially after the Government’s Budget. The Ministry of Justice and Home Office are other legislation-heavy departments. This is because they deal with policing and criminal justice and things like sentencing policy often result in law changes.
-
What limitations are placed on government ministers?
There are a number of factors that limit the success of Government Ministers. These include:
-
They are outnumbered by their senior officials by around six or seven to one. There are far more Senior Civil Servants in departments than Ministers.
-
They lack permanency staying in one department for two years on average.
-
Between 1945 and 2016 the average length of tenure a Government Minister was 26 months. However, since the EU Referendum in 2016, this has dropped to one year and 3 months.
-
-
They are non-specialists often lacking knowledge of the department’s work – who rarely have clear objectives and priorities. They never ‘master their brief’ and often lack prior experience before rising the political ladder.
-
Between 1945 and 2016, the average levels of previous Parliamentary experience before appointment:
-
6.5 years for a Cabinet Minister
-
3.5 years for a Minister of State
-
1.4 years for a Junior Minister
-
Under a year for a Government Whip
-
-
-
They have multiple demands on their time – Cabinet, Parliament, media, constituency and party. Around 65% of work is non-departmental.
-
They may find it difficult to get key information as a department as they are dependent on what officials tell them or what data they are presented. Officials control the supply of information and may purposely embarrass Ministers for personal or career reasons.
-
They may find it difficult to get their policies implemented and their decisions carried out as Civil Service officials have developed the 'art of delay' to frustrate ministerial initiatives they disagree with.
2.3.2 - The concept of ministerial responsibility
Individual Ministerial Responsibility: The convention that a government minister is responsible for everything that happens within his department, regardless of whether they knew about it or not.
Nolan Principles: A set of Principles set up to more clearly define the ethical principles to which public servants and MPs should be held.
Ministerial Code: The document that Ministers have to sign which outlines the expectations placed upon them. Whenever a new Prime Minister takes office, the Ministerial Code is updated.
Collective Ministerial Responsibility: This is the doctrine that states that decisions taken by the British government are taken collectively, so should be publicly supported by all members of the government.
Partygate: A political scandal between 2020-21 around unlawful gatherings that were held in government buildings in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.
Chris Pincher Affair: A political scandal surrounding the appointment and retention of Chris Pincher as a government minister by Boris Johnson, despite serious allegations of harassment against him.
Free Vote: A vote in the House of Commons whereby party whips do not instruct their MPs how to vote. This is very rare.
Recent examples of IMR/ CMR being enforced in 2025
Individual ministerial responsibility: On February 8th, 2025, Andrew Gwynne was dismissed from his position of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Gwynne was dismissed after inappropriate message he had sent in a WhatsApp group, including those alleged to be antisemitic and ageist, were reported in the national press. Starmer's spokesman said that “The prime minister is determined to uphold high standards of conduct in public office and lead a government in the service of working people. He will not hesitate to take action against any minister who fails to meet these standards, as he has in this case”.
Collective ministerial responsibility: On February 28th, 2025, Anneliese Dodds resigned as International Development Minister. This was a result of Starmer's announcement that the UK would reduce its foreign aid budget by 0.2% of GDP, with the money instead going towards an expanded defence budget in light of the threat posed by American isolationism to Europe's security, and the need to reduce military reliance on the US. Dodds argued that cuts to foreign aid would "remove food and healthcare from desperate people - deeply harming the UK's reputation." Since she felt that she could not support these policies in public, she honourably resigned from her position under the CMR convention.
What is 'individual ministerial responsibility'?
Government Ministers are answerable to Parliament for everything that goes on within their department. Therefore, if something goes wrong, they are ultimately responsible. This convention is known as Individual Ministerial Responsibility. Importantly, Individual Ministerial Responsibility is not just about responsibility for the department. There is also an expectation that Ministers positively represents the Government in their personal dealings. They should:
-
Obey the law of the land.
-
Obey the rules and conventions of Parliament.
-
Have unimpeachable Financial Dealings.
-
Act in accordance with an unwritten moral code.
In other words, IMR means that ministers should resign for either political or personal failings. As part of the convention of individual ministerial responsibility it is the case that:
-
Ministers represent their department in Parliament and must not deliberately mislead Parliament.
-
Ministers represent their department at all times, even in their private dealings.
-
Ministers are responsible for everything that they could/ should have reasonably known about within their departments, even if they did not personally make the decision.
In order to clarify individual ministerial responsibility, in 1994 a Committee was established called the Committee for Standards in Public Life. Its remit included Ministers and Civil Servants, along with other figures in public roles. The very first report issued by the Committee Standards in Public Life was called ‘The Seven Principles of Public Life’ (the Nolan Principles). This report laid out seven key principles that public figures should be held to:
-
Selflessness
-
Integrity
-
Objectivity
-
Accountability
-
Openness
-
Honesty
-
Leadership
The idea behind these codes was to take away some of the ambiguity that existed in ‘an unwritten moral code’.
Since 1992, a codified document called the Ministerial Code has developed. It started in the 1980s as the Question of Procedure for Ministers; this was confidential and was not made public until 1992. In 1997, the document changed into the ‘Ministerial Code’. It is now the convention that each Prime Minister publishes their own version. The last version was published in 2024.
One of the problems with Individual Ministerial Responsibility is that as a convention its enforcement is entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. Only they decide whether or not someone has breached the code. They also decide what the code says and whether or not to even investigate a breach. The Prime Minister therefore plays the role of judge, jury and executioner over the code. The Prime Minister may often not want to make a finding under the code because it will reflect badly on them politically.
Examples of IMR being enforced for personal failings
Peter Mandelson (1998 and 2001): Mandelson was one of the triumvirate of individuals alongside Tony Blair and Gordon Brown responsible for the formation of New Labour. In 1998 he became Secretary of State for Trade. However, five months later he was forced to resign after it emerged that he had taken a loan from a fellow MP that he had not declared. Nonetheless, he returned to the Cabinet in 1999 as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In 2001, for the second time he was forced to resign a second time following accusations that he fast-tracked the passport application of an associate. Whilst both these cases involved personal failings, Mandelson was still obliged to resign under the Ministerial Code.
Matt Hancock (2021): Whilst acting as Health Secretary during the COVID-19 pandemic The Sun newspaper published images which showed Matt Hancock breaking social distancing guidelines by embracing and kissing a colleague who it later transpired he was having an extramarital affair with. As the person responsible for creating the rules the fact that he had so flagrantly breached them made his position completely untenable.
Dominic Raab (2023): Following an independent report that had found that Raab had mistreated civil servants working for him, Raab offered his resignation to the Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak) from his position as Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary.
.jpg)
Examples of IMR not being enforced for personal failings
Priti Patel (2020): The Ministerial Code says "Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated." The Home Secretary Priti Patel was accused in 2020 of bullying civil servants, including by swearing at them and belittling them. The Permanent Secretary of the Home Office even resigned citing her behaviour. In November 2020 a Cabinet Office enquiry found that Patel "had not met the requirements of the ministerial code to treat civil servants with consideration and respect." Boris Johnson, however, refused to ask for Patel's resignation and she continued in this position until 2022. It is quite clear that the Cabinet Office report found clear evidence that Patel had been a bully. However, she was consistently found to be a popular member of the Conservative Party with its members. It would not have been in Boris Johnson's political interest to remove her. Therefore, he ignored the requirements of his own ministerial code and did not remove her from her position as Home Secretary. Following his decision, the author of the Cabinet Office report criticising Patel, Sir Alex Allen, even resigned in protest at Boris Johnson's decision.
Boris Johnson (2022): The Ministerial Code says "It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister." Despite clearly misleading Parliamentary enquiries over the 'Partygate' scandal relating to illegal parties held at 10 Downing Street during a period of covid-related social distancing and lockdown enforcement, Johnson did not enforce the convention of IMR on himself and only resigned after pressure from within his party.
.jpg)
Examples of IMR being enforced for political failings
Lord Carrington (1982): In April 1982 the Argentinian Armed Forces invaded the British Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic. This had been an ongoing dispute and the Argentine Government had claimed sovereignty over the islands. However, despite the ongoing political dispute, the invasion of the islands took the British Government almost entirely by surprise. However, there had been warnings from a naval commander called Captain Nicholas Barker that an invasion was likely. Subsequently, Carrington offered his resignation as Foreign Secretary to the PM, Margaret Thatcher.
Estelle Morris (2002): In 2002 Estelle Morris was the Education Secretary. She had made a commitment to oversee a rise in literacy levels but was not able to achieve this. Subsequently, she suddenly resigned following issues around A-Level marking by refreshingly admitting that she was just not up to the job.
Amber Rudd (2018): In 2018 Amber Rudd was the Home Secretary when reports emerged that the children of the Windrush Generation were being threatened with deportation by the UK Government if they could not explicitly prove their right to stay in the UK. Further to this, it was reported that the Home Office had targets for the number of immigrants they would aim to remove from the UK. Amber Rudd claimed that there were not targets for deportations, but during scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee other parties suggested that there were. Following this, the Guardian Newspaper was given emails that suggested that Rudd had known about the targets for removal. Rudd denied this, saying that whilst the memo was copied to her, she had not read it. Regardless, Rudd admitted to having ‘inadvertently misled the House of Commons’ and therefore resigned as Home Secretary.
Examples of IMR not being enforced for political failings
Chris Grayling: Chris Grayling has a reputation as being one of the worst Government Ministers in recent years. Despite this, he held numerous positions in Government including Transport Secretary, Leader of the House of Commons, Justice Secretary and Minister for Employment. During his Ministerial career he made a number of widely publicised gaffes and was often referred to as "Failing Grayling". However, rather than being sacked due to incompetence, he was instead reshuffled into new roles. This is a tactic often used by Prime Ministers as sacking a Minister reflects badly on the Prime Minister, not just on the Minister who has been sacked.
Gavin Williamson: As Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson made a plethora of mistakes and lost the confidence of the teaching profession. Some of these included; the chaos of the August 2020 exam results which saw results changed after huge discrepancies created by the government's results algorithm; and repeated U-Turns over issues like Free School Meals, COVID closures, and a failure to provide equipment for remote learning for students from disadvantaged areas. There was some suggestion, although unverified, that Williamson was able to stay in his role for so long because he 'had something' on Boris Johnson (the Prime Minister); this perception was enhanced by the fact that he had previously served as Government Chief Whip. In his autobiography, Gavin Barwell (Theresa May's former Chief of Staff) suggested that he threatened to 'not go quietly' if he were to be sacked.
Are Ministers held to an unfair moral standard?
Ministers are arguably held to an unfair moral standard. Often Ministers have been forced to resign due to perceived moral failures, even if things that simply would not have the same impact in any other profession. A good example of this might be found in Ron Davies. In 1997 he was sacked as Welsh Secretary after agreeing to go to dinner with a man he met on Clapham Common. He was subsequently mugged at knifepoint. The full details of what happened never emerged, but the notion that he had done something for which the average person might be sacked his hard to maintain. A more recent example is when Louise Haigh (Education Minister) resigned in 2024 from Keir Starmer's government after it was revealed almost a decade beforehand she had reported a phone lost to the police after a traumatic mugging, and only later realised that she had made a mistake and it was at home (as she did not correct the police record, this was technically "fraud by misrepresentation" even though she did not monetarily benefit).
The merits of IMR as a convention
The limits of IMR as a convention
It ensures there is always someone who is meant to be accountable for everything that happens in Government. This theoretically stops the government from just consistently ‘passing the buck’ for failures, e.g. when Amber Rudd resigned as a result of the Windrush Scandal in 2018, since she was the Home Secretary at the time.
Ministers very rarely resign due to Ministerial failures. This is because accepting that resignation would reflect badly on the Prime Minister and Government as a whole. This can lead to poor Ministers staying in Government and not taking accountability for their political failures, such as Chris Grayling or Gavin Williamson.
It keeps the Civil Service on its toes – Civil Servants know that they will not be named if something goes wrong. However, they are still kept on their toes by knowing that their mistakes could mean "their" Minister gets in trouble. Although Civil Servants are unlikely to be sacked for making mistakes, they chances of future promotion and harmony will be damaged by association with a sacking.
Despite being ultimately responsible, Ministers are increasingly able to blame special advisors and civils servants for their mistakes. For example, following the leak of a video of civil servants discussing how to deflect questions about parties during Partygate, Allegra Stratton (the Downing Street Press Secretary) tearfully resigned, rather than the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.
It facilitates the work of the opposition – The fact each Government Minister has a direct opponent in the Shadow Cabinet means that they proactively try to justify government policy and where they fail to do so there are consequences, e.g. Home Secretary Amber Rudd being questioned by Yvette Cooper (Shadow Home Secretary) during the Windrush Scandal, leading to her resignation.
Often the Government is more concerned with image, rather than reality. For example, in 2021 the Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, was alleged to have told a Police Officer to learn his “f***ing place” and that he was a “pleb”. Whilst it was Mitchell’s word against the officers, the Conservative leadership was conscious that ‘plebgate’ reinforced an image of the Tories as elitist and was asked to resign.
It ensures that Ministers are held to account for their personal behaviour and that high standards are maintained in accordance with the 'Nolan Principles'; this is crucial for maintaining public trust in politicians at a time when there are many allegations of hypocrisy and 'out-of-touch' elites. For example, the resignation of Tulip Siddiq as a Treasury Minister in Keir Starmer's government in 2025 (because of alleged links with assets and corrupt infrastructure deals provided by her aunt Sheikh Hasina, the ex-dictator of Bangladesh), helped to reinforce public trust in politicians and the belief that wrongdoing would be punished.
When Ministers do resign it is often a tactical decision in order to take the pressure off of the government. Ministers sacked often re-join the Government. An example to consider here is the case of Gavin Williamson. In May 2019 he was sacked as Defence Secretary for allegedly leaking national security information to a reporter. There are few worse examples of misconduct that a Minister can engage in. However, remarkably, just two months later he returned under a new Prime Minister as Secretary of State for Education. This shows that ministerial resignations (or sackings) and not as significant as they arguably should be.
What is 'collective ministerial responsibility'?
Collective Ministerial Responsibility is the convention under which Government Ministers agree that Government decisions are taken collectively and should therefore be supported in public by all Ministers. If they do not feel that they can defend government decisions in public (even though they disagree in private), then Ministers are expected to resign or be sacked by the Prime Minister. This is an important part of Cabinet Government. It is included in the Ministerial Code which says: “The principle of collective responsibility applies to all Government Ministers”.
Examples of CMR being invoked or enforced
Robin Cook (2003): One of the most famous examples of a resignation under Collective Responsibility was Robin Cook in 2003. Cook was a senior Labour Minister and had been Foreign Secretary and a key figure in the formation of New Labour. In 2003, however, he disagreed with the decision of the Cabinet to go to war in Iraq without first seeking a new resolution from the UN Security Council. He subsequently gave a powerful speech from the backbenches outlining his opposition to the Iraq War.
Lord Frost (2021): Lord Frost [right] was the minister responsible for Brexit and was previously a Special Advisor to Boris Johnson. He had been given a peerage so that he could sit in the Cabinet. However, in December 2021, he resigned from the Government over the plans to introduce stringent 'Plan B' COVID restrictions.
Lord Agnew (2022): Lord Agnew was a Treasury Minister. He resigned whilst speaking from the Despatch Box in the House of Lords saying that the Government was failing to adequately deal with fraudulent claims by companies for COVID-19 relief. He said that "the current state of affairs is not acceptable" and "it feels dishonest to stay on in that role."
Brexit and collective responsibility: No issue has seen more resignations under the doctrine of Collective Responsibility than Brexit and it's unlikely the number will ever be surpassed. After the referendum result, and the formation of Theresa May's Cabinets, Collective Responsibility was back in force after David Cameron suspended it for the referendum. Although there were always going to be disagreements in Cabinet over Brexit, Ministers have been expected to sell Theresa May's vision of the direction it should take. However, in total 36 Government ministers resigned from Theresa May's government over Brexit, including:
-
David Davis: Davis was appointed to the newly-founded Cabinet position of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Brexit Secretary). During the referendum campaign, he had pushed for Britain to leave the EU. As Brexit Secretary it was his job to negotiate with the EU about the terms of Britain's withdrawal. It quickly became clear that he was largely being side-lined by Theresa May and when she announced her 'Chequers Plan' for the withdrawal terms, he decided he could no longer support the government.
-
Boris Johnson: Theresa May made Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary when she became Prime Minister. He had campaigned to leave the European Union and was seen by many to have been the most decisive voice in the Leave campaign. In his role as Foreign Secretary, Johnson should have been taking a leading role in negotiating Brexit. However, it was clear that he never really agreed with the direction Theresa May was pursuing (feeling that Britain should detach from the EU's economic rules more than May was proposing). He pushed the boundaries of Collective Responsibility many times before his eventual resignation, for example writing a column for the Daily Telegraph in 2017 in which he laid out a vision of Brexit that was different to that of May. Johnson finally resigned on the 9th July 2018 after stating that he could not accept the Prime Minister's Chequers Plan.
-
Dominic Raab: Raab was appointed Brexit Secretary after the resignation of Davis. He was only in post for a little over four months, deciding to resign the morning after Theresa May announced her Draft Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. Raab had always held reservations over the direction of the negotiations and decided not to stay in the Cabinet and support May's negotiated agreement with the EU.
The end of Boris Johnson's premiership: Following a number of scandals, including Partygate and the Chris Pincher Affair, almost the entire government of Boris Johnson resigned, e.g. Rishi Sunak (Chancellor) and Sajid Javid (Health Secretary), forcing his own resignation as Prime Minister. In early July 2022, 62 of the 179 members of the extended government resigned.
.jpg)
.jpg)
When is Collective Responsibility set aside?
There are occasions when Collective Responsibility is set aside by a Prime Minister:
-
During National Referendums: This happened in both the 1975 EEC Referendum and the 2016 EU Referendum. This was because there was a clear split within the Cabinet as to which side of the campaign they would support. For example, in the 2016 EU Referendum the Cabinet was split. Whilst most Cabinet Members supported Remain, five actively campaigned to leave: Michael Gove, John Whittingdale, Chris Grayling, Theresa Villiers and Priti Patel. The Prime Minister could not enforce CMR as it would necessitate them sacking a significant proportion of their Cabinet, or having them resign.
-
During Periods of Coalition: Collective Responsibility has also been relaxed (if not set aside) during periods of Coalition. Between 2010-2015 there were a number of occasions when Ministers disagreed with each other. Despite a ‘Coalition Agreement’ that tried to amalgamate the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Manifesto there was always going to be tension within government. There were some notable examples of this. For instance, Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable was regularly at odds in public with Conservative Cabinet Members. In 2013 he criticised the Conservative Party for their “ugly” and “blinkered” policies. In particular he attacked Conservative policies on immigration, the economy and Europe.
-
For Free Votes in the House of Commons: Collective Responsibility will sometimes be laid aside through a ‘Free Vote’ in the House of Commons. This is a vote in which whipping is suspended, normally because it is a particularly contentious vote or one that calls on an MPs individual morality in order to make their judgement. A good example of this was the vote on Same-Sex Marriage in 2013. Whilst David Cameron as PM supported Same-Sex Marriage and voted for it, he allowed a number of his Cabinet to vote against it or abstain but still remain in the Cabinet. They included Owen Paterson (Environment Secretary) and David Jones (Welsh Secretary) who voted against the bill while then Defence Secretary Philip Hammond abstained. More recently, collective responsibility has been suspended on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) or "Assisted Dying" Bill (2024-2025) as an issue of conscience.
-
To appease particular Ministers: Sometimes, certain Ministers have been given more latitude to be critical of the Government than others – depending upon their seniority, experience or political popularity.
Examples of CMR not being enforced against Ministers
Theresa May & Boris Johnson: When Theresa May became Prime Minister in 2016, she had to assemble her Cabinet. This was a very difficult job particularly given the unique political circumstances she found herself in. She decided to make Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary because he was too much of a 'big beast' to remain outside the Cabinet. She rationalised that he would be a bigger threat to her outside the Cabinet when he could say entirely what he wanted rather than inside the Cabinet where he would be bound, at least in theory, by Collective Responsibility. In fact, even within the Cabinet, Johnson attacked May's policies (such as the 'Chequers Deal') in the media - but the political climate and Johnson's popularity meant she was unable to sack him despite repeated breaches of Collective Responsibility.
Theresa May & Michael Gove: In 2014, two of the most Senior ministers - Michael Gove (Education Secretary) and Theresa May (Home Secretary) - were engaged in a public spat over schools and the radicalisation of young people. Both sniped at each other in the media and blamed the other's department for the issues. Things became so bad that David Cameron had to ask the Cabinet Secretary to intervene. However, despite both clearly breaching Collective Responsibility it would not have been possible to sack two such senior ministers at the same time.
The limits of CMR as a convention
The merits of CMR as a convention
Collective Responsibility is not concrete. The fact that this is the case means it can be suspended for an issue that goes beyond party politics, for example the Brexit Referendum, the vote on Same-Sex Marriage, or the vote on Assisted Dying. For these issues of 'conscience', allowing Cabinet ministers to campaign and vote as they wish enriches public debate and allows general unity.
In recent years Collective Responsibility has been even harder to maintain due to the predominance of leaks. It is easy for Ministers to ‘brief’ against each other and maintain ‘plausible deniability’. Blair's government was hurt by the fact that even the Prime Minister and Chancellor (Brown) were briefing against each other in the media. This undermined collective responsibility.
Having Collective Responsibility reinforces the very fact of Cabinet Government. It ensures a common message is common from Government and avoids confusion by presenting a united executive front.
Some Ministers are just too powerful to sack, e.g. Blair's inability to sack Brown (Chancellor), or May's inability to sack Johnson (Foreign Secretary) because of their popularity and status.
It encourages ‘joined-up thinking’ in government as decisions taken by one department will inevitably impact on others and must be considered before it is presented to the general public.
Further to this, enforcing Collective Responsibility is entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister and is not legally binding. They are unlikely to do so if removing a Minister harms them politically.
It encourages debate to happen behind closed doors. For example, prior to Johnson's decision to introduce his ‘living with COVID’ plan there was fierce debate between the Chancellor (Rishi Sunak) and the Health Secretary (Sajid Javid) about the plan to remove free Lateral Flow Tests. Whilst they disagreed strongly on this issue, both then supported it in public afterwards.
As Collective Responsibility is not based on Parliamentary statute law, but on convention, it cannot be adequately scrutinised by Parliament.
How significant are IMR and CMR?
CMR is undoubtedly more significant that IMR in British politics.
Whilst it is sometimes relaxed in certain circumstances, this is a political necessity and should not really be seen as a weakness. In addition, it encourages reflective government behind the scenes but encourages a consistent message in public which avoids given confused signals to the electorate. Whilst PMs do sometimes have to relax it for certain ministers, this is still a rarity, and most Ministers are bound by it.
However, IMR has limited significance. It relies on the honour of Ministers to enforce it as few PMs will enforce it as it may be to their political detriment. The biggest limiting factor is the Prime Minister's role as the ultimate adjudicator of the code and this means that in reality it lacks significance.
BE CAREFUL: Who does IMR and CMR not apply to?
One mistake to avoid is to say that IMR and CMR bind backbench MPs. Whilst backbench MPs are accountable to their party leader, and may be punished for rebelling or misbehaviour, the convention that they must resign or be removed only exists for Ministers. If an individual MP has the whip withdrawn, they may still be able to sit as an independent MP.
2.3.3 - The Prime Minister and Cabinet
Reshuffles: The process by which the Prime Minister changes the individuals in charge of the major government departments. This is often used as a way to freshen up the government and happens about once per year.
Cabinet Committees: The smaller committees formed out of the larger cabinet. They usually focus on particular areas, such as security or health.
Cabinet Secretary: The Cabinet Secretary is the Head of the Civil Service. They are responsible for minuting Cabinet Meetings and heading the team of Permanent Secretary’s across the different government departments.
Inner Cabinet: A term given for the notion that there are smaller groups formed within the Cabinet that come to dominate how it operates.
Kitchen Cabinet: A term given for the cliché of close advisors and staff with whom the Prime Minister holds informal meetings through which to develop policy and deal with issues.
Special Advisors (SPADs): Unelected government advisors who are not tied to the same principles as Civil Servants.
Sofa Government: This is style of government in which meetings are informal in nature and usually involve a variety of unelected advisors. The term Sofa Government first came to prominence when Tony Blair was Prime Minister.
Spin Doctors: A public relations advisor who tries to influence public perception by presenting information in a biased or favorable way.
Cabinet Government: A Cabinet Style of government is one in which the Government works more collectively and the Prime Minister acts mostly as a facilitator for government.
Prime Ministerial Government: A Prime Ministerial style is one in which the Prime Minister is dominant over the Cabinet and Parliament.
Presidential Government: A style of government in which the Prime Minister is undoubtedly the dominant force and acts 'as if' a directly elected President.
Winter of Discontent: A period in 1978-79 which was marked by widespread strikes and public protest.
Falklands War: A conflict that took place between April and June 1982 when British forces retook the Falklands Islands from Argentinian control.
Monetarism: An economic approach which stresses the role of the government in controlling the amount of money in the economy.
Keynesian Economics: An economic theory that emphasises government intervention in the economy to stimualte markets.
Rebate: A refund given on money you pay to someone or something else.
Iron Lady: A term used to describe Margaret Thatcher. It was a term that she embraced, despite it first being used in a negative sense.
Murdoch Press: A term used to describe the media empire owned by Australian businessman, Rupert Murdoch. In Britain, this included both The Sun and The Times newspapers.
Wets: The term Thatcher gave for her Cabinet members who opposed her monetarist policies and were more One-Nation in their outlook.
Dries: The term Thatcher gave for her Cabinet members who supported her monetarist policies and were genreally more aligned with the New-Right in their political identity.
'Back to Basics':
Maastricht Treaty:
Black Wednesday:
Social Chapter:
Downing Street Declaration:
Gulf War:
Black Wednesday:
Clause IV:
Good Friday Agreement (1998):
European Convention of Human Rights:
A v. Home Secretary:
Cash for Honours:
Global Financial Crisis:
MPs Expenses Scandal:
Lisbon Treaty:
What does the Cabinet do?
The Cabinet is the senior decision-making body of the UK Government. It is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes the heads of major government departments. Most government departments are headed by a Secretary of State. The main functions of the Cabinet are:
-
Decision Making: Making key decisions on government policy and strategy.
-
Proposing Legislation: Playing a role in drafting new laws to be debated by Parliament.
-
Budget Proposal: Proposing the national budget and managing public finance.
-
Administration: Running the functions of government on a day-to-day basis.
-
Crisis Management: Dealing with sudden issues of national importance and coordinating a response.
-
Oversight: Ensuring the government as a whole is acting appropriately and efficiently and holding other ministers both within and outside the Cabinet to account for this.
What considerations must be made on who is in the Cabinet?
Choosing who sits in the Cabinet is one of the Prime Minister’s most important jobs. Choosing a cabinet is a Royal Prerogative power, meaning that the decisions are not ratifiable by Parliament. Considerations include:
A* Zone: How do the considerations below differ between Prime Ministers?
The considerations made when choosing a Cabinet are not the same for all Prime Ministers and a
number of factors will dictate the type of Cabinet they select. These include:
Their previous experience: A Prime Minister with significant previous experience may feel able to appoint a government that is lacking in wider experience. However, a PM with little experience of government may feel they need some ‘old hands’ around them.
Their parliamentary majority: A Prime Minister with a significant parliamentary majority may feel more
empowered to make bold appointments to government. For example, with a 174-seat majority, Keir
Starmer felt able to appoint James Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing
Reoffending despite them having no previous experience in government.
Their personal popularity: A Prime Minister with strong personaly popularity may not feel the needs to appoint those they are politically close to into the Cabinet. However, a PM with less popular support may feel the need to pack their government with people they know are politically loyal.
Their skill set: Prime Minister’s may make appointments that take into account their own interests and skill sets. For example, Rishi Sunak was clearly more interested in domestic politics than foreign affairs. His appointment of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary arguably created a ‘dual premiership’ with Cameron focusing on foreign affairs and Sunak focusing on things domestically.
The political situation: Some PM’s will be constrained by the political situation they inherit. For example, when becoming PM in July 2016, Theresa May’s appointments were heavily influenced by Brexit and a requirement to balance her Cabinet with Leaver and Remainers. However, when Johnson took over as PM in September 2019 as a result of the Brexit impasse, he was keen to pack his government with strong Leave figures.
1. They will need political allies in key positions: All Prime Ministers feel the need to place political allies in key positions. This guarantees them a supporting voice during difficult Cabinet discussions and gives them people within the Cabinet that they can implicitly trust.
George Osborne was appointed David Cameron’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. Osborne and Cameron had been close friends since their time at Oxford University.
Theresa May appointed Damien Green as First Secretary of State in June 2017 during the second May administration. They had been friends since their time at Oxford University.
Tony Blair appointed Lord Falconer Lord Chancellor. At the time, prior to the Constitutional Reform Act (2005) this was a very powerful role. They had been flatmates in the 1970s when they were both young barristers.
2. They need to represent wings of the party they are less in touch with: Whilst it may be tempting for Prime Ministers to pack their Cabinet with figures who share their political philosophy, it is important for Prime Ministers to show their party that their Cabinet reflects the make-up of the wider party.
Margaret Thatcher appointed Michael Heseltine as Deputy Prime Minister. Whilst Thatcher represented the New Right wing of the party, Michael Heseltine identified as a One-Nation Conservative. His position was an olive branch to those in the parliamentary party who did not fully align with Thatcherism.
Harold Wilson included Tony Benn in his Cabinet. Benn advocated far more radical socialist policies than Wilson, and this appeased the far-left of the party. Within the Labour Party, as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are elected separately, there is a tendency for them to come from different wings of the party - such as Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, or historically Tony Blair and John Prescott.
3. They need to reflect the 'political realities' of the time: Sometimes the wider political circumstances of the time place a significant burden on the PM in the selection of their Cabinet. There may be divisive issues that need to be carefully managed to avoid the breakdown of the government.
When appointing her first Cabinet, Theresa May had to be extremely conscious of the Brexit vote in which 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. As a Remainer, she also needed to ensure that she was seen to be giving Leavers key positions in her Cabinet. For example, she appointed Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary and David Davis as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
After the 2010 General Election, David Cameron was forced to form a Coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats. As part of the Coalition Agreement, a number of Cabinet positions went to Liberal Democrat MPs. This meant that Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Danny Alexander and others joined Conservatives in the Cabinet.
4. Some Cabinet members may be appointed due to their vast experience: Prime Ministers will also want to ensure there are wise old heads in the Cabinet, particularly when they are inexperienced in governance or there is a perceived need to 'steady the ship'. Prime Ministers need figures around them who have ‘institutional memory’ and can help put political situations in their historical context.
When Tony Blair became Prime Minister the Conservatives had been in office for 18 years. This meant few of his Cabinet had any governmental experience (including Blair himself). This made it hard for Blair to make appointments based on this factor. His decisions to include Gavin Strang and John Morris (both of whom served in the last Labour government in the 1970s) in his Cabinet may have been influenced by this factor.
David Cameron appointed Ken Clarke to be Justice Secretary in his Cabinet of 2010. In the year of his seventieth birthday, Clarke was a respected grandee in their party and someone who himself had run for leadership of the party three times. He had served in senior positions under both Margaret Thatcher and John Major. As such, he was someone who could offer sage counsel to the Prime Minister.
5. They need to keep political rivals close: As the saying goes, "keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer." Prime Ministers may decide it is better to give their political rivals a key position where they have some control over them. Whilst in Cabinet, Ministers are constrained by collective responsibility and have to publicly support the Prime Minister. As another saying often attributed to US President Lyndon B Johnson goes, "it is better to have someone inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in…" Prime Ministers therefore may choose to include their key political rivals in the Cabinet.
Without any doubt the best example of this is the appointment of Boris Johnson under Theresa May. It was clear that Johnson was a rival for May’s leadership and she decided that appointing him to a senior Cabinet position (Foreign Secretary) may keep him on the leash. As it turned out, even from within the Cabinet Johnson was critical of May and penned damaging articles about her leadership for the Daily Telegraph.
The appointment of Michael Heseltine by Margaret Thatcher is another example. Heseltine was seen as an alternative to Thatcher by many in the Conservative Party and she could not afford to have him on the outside being able to criticise her restriction. Indeed, when Heseltine left the Cabinet in 1986 he became a thorn in Thatcher’s side and eventually challenged her for the leadership in 1990, precipitating her resignation.
6. Some Ministers will be brought into Cabinet as a fast-track to the top jobs: Sometimes Ministers are bought into the 'lower' roles in the Cabinet early in their career because it is expected they will have a big future in the party. Consequently, these figures can quickly rise to the top jobs in the Cabinet.
David Miliband was appointed DEFRA Secretary in 2006. This is despite the fact that he was just 41 and had only become an MP in 2001. It was expected that Miliband would be a future leader and in 2007, after just a year in the Cabinet, Gordon Brown appointed him to be Foreign Secretary.
Ed Balls was a key economic advisor to Gordon Brown in the Treasury but then became an MP in 2005. Just two years later he was appointed Education Secretary by Gordon Brown and it was widely expected that he would one day be appointed Chancellor by Brown.
Rishi Sunak became an MP in 2015 but by 2019 he had been appointed Chief Secretary to the Cabinet by Boris Johnson, and in 2020 became the youngest ever modern Chancellor aged just 39.
7. Some Ministers will be appointed because of competence: Alongside the other factors that need to be considered, Prime Ministers also need to simply have good Ministers in their Cabinet. This is particularly the case for briefs that traditionally have been tricky or that the Prime Minister is placing a particular emphasis on.
David Cameron chose Oliver Letwin to work in the Cabinet Office because of his skill as an administrator. Whilst a figure who was not well publicly known, those who worked with him knew how effective he was.
Philip Hammond served in a number of prominent positions in government including Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign, Transport and Defence Secretary. Whilst Hammond was never considered to be a particularly charismatic figure, he was very much considered a reliable departmental leader.
8. Prime Ministers need to consider the descriptive representation of their Cabinet: Increasingly Prime Ministers need to consider the descriptive representation of their Cabinets. The publicly expect that their political leaders reflect the make-up of the nation and a Cabinet that is made up of white middle-aged men is likely to be criticised. Many recent Cabinets have therefore been a better reflection of demographics of the nation.
Tony Blair’s first Cabinet in 1997 broke boundaries with more women (5, out of Labour's 101 female MPs) than ever before. In addition, David Blunkett was appointed the first blind Cabinet Minister, and Baroness Amos was the first black female Cabinet Minister.
Liz Truss’ short-lived Cabinet had the distinction of being the only one in which none of the four Great Officers of State was held by a white male. Overall, it was the most demographically diverse Cabinet in history.
A* Zone: Can ministers be from the House of Lords?
Ministers in the UK Government must sit in either the House of Commons or House of Lords. Generally, far more Ministers are appointed from the Commons than the Lords. In some cases, there is no option but for the Prime Minister to appoint Ministers from the Lords. For example, there are some Ministers who represent the Government in the Lords. For example, the Leader of the Lords is appointed to the Government (sometimes to the Cabinet) to allow the government to manage its business in the Lords Chamber.
However, in addition to these necessities, a Prime Minister might appoint someone to the government from the House of Lords. In some circumstances, they may even make someone a member of the House of Lords precisely so they can join the government. This has happened a number of times, but there are three recent examples that stand out:
-
Lord Cameron: On 13 November 2023 Rishi Sunak began a cabinet reshuffle precipitated by the sacking of Suella Braverman as Home Secretary. However, her sacking very quickly got overtaken as the story of the day as to the astonishment of everyone, David Cameron emerged in Downing Street, entered Number 10 and then left being appointed as the new Foreign Secretary. It was quickly announced that Cameron would be appointed to the House of Lords after being granted a barony to sit as Lord Cameron.
-
Lord Frost: In 2021 David Frost was appointed to the Cabinet and made a member of the House of Lords. He had previously been Boris Johnson’s advisor on European issues between 2019 and 2021 and had been Britain’s chief negotiator in the Brexit talks.
-
Lord Mandelson: Peter Mandelson, along with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, had been one of the chief architects of New Labour. He had twice been forced to resign as an MP after political scandals surrounding him. At times, his relationship with Gordon Brown had been strained. However, in 2008 he was appointed to the House of Lords and made Business Secretary in Brown’s Government. In 2009, he was even appointed First Secretary of State, effectively making him the number two person in government. Mandelson, despite being unelected, was incredibly powerful, sitting on 35 cabinet committees or sub-committees with a brief that extended across Government.
There are some potential issues with Ministers, especially senior ones, being appointed from the Lords:
-
One constitutional concern is that members of the House of Lords are not directly accountable to the electorate via elections. Most peers hold their position virtue of appointment or hereditary descent and, until recently, held that position until they died.
-
Members of the House of Lords are arguably not able to be effectively scrutinized by the elected Commons. Importantly, despite mechanisms of scrutiny being similar as in the Commons (question time, committees and written questions), members of the Lords cannot be directly scrutinised by elected members (apart from in rare Joint Committees).
However, there are arguably significant benefits of appointing Ministers from the House of Lords:
-
Many people are appointed to the House of Lords because they are experts in a field. This expertise can then be utilised in Government. For example, in 2006 Alan West retired as First Sea Lord. He was a world leading expert in security issues. As such, in July 2007 he was appointed the House of Lords and then immediately appointed as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Security and Counter-Terrorism. This meant his enormous expertise remained in public service.
-
Lords have tenure and are normally in place until they die. This means they do not have to worry about how their actions will impact them at the next election. They also do not have to weigh up constituency and national interests as an MP does. Consequently, Ministers from the Lords are more likely to be able to exercise their briefs without worrying about the electoral consequences and are much less likely to be swayed by populist pressures.
-
There are 650 MPs and because of the abstention of Sinn Fein (who refuse to swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown), a government normally needs around 320 to form a working majority. If a government has 320 MPs some will be too old for government, some will be too young or inexperienced and some will just be unwilling. With around 120 ministerial posts to fill, this means the talent pool is limited. Both Labour and the Conservatives have significant numbers of Lords (currently 279 – Conservative and 214 – Labour) which gives them more scope for ministerial appointments.
Why are Cabinet reshuffles so important?
Cabinet reshuffles happen fairly regularly in the UK and take place for a number of reasons, such as:
1. To reflect a change in policy or direction: The Prime Minister may choose to change their cabinet to kick-start a change in agenda for the government. This often comes when the government has been seen to be under performing or needs a clear message indicated to the electorate.
As PM Boris Johnson abolished the office of Brexit Secretary (officially Secretary of State for exiting the European Union). By abolishing this position on the 31st January 2020 (then held by Stephen Barkley), Boris Johnson was trying to send a firm message that the job of Brexit had been completed.
2. To remove ministers who are under-performing: Ministers are meant to abide by the doctrine of Individual Ministerial Responsibility. Under this convention, if a Minister knows they are under-performing they should tender their resignation to the Prime Minister. However, firstly, many Ministers rarely wish to admit they were under performing. Secondly, the Prime Minister does not want to admit his Ministers are under performing as this reflects on them, as it was they who appointed them. Therefore, a Cabinet Reshuffle is a good way to get rid of failing ministers under the cover of a change they could claim was happening anyway.
Sometimes a Minister might not be sacked but may simply be reshuffled to a different Cabinet role. A good example of this happening is the removal of Michael Gove as Education Secretary in 2014. He had overseen a wide-ranging reform agenda in schools, however, he was widely disliked by Trade Unions who had held successful indicative votes of no confidence in him. In the reshuffle he was moved to position of Chief Whip. This could be presented as a promotion, but in reality it was clearly a demotion.
Gavin Williamson was removed as Education Secretary in September 2021. Williamson had overseen a number of mishaps in his Department, including the A-Level results catastrophe in August 2020 and perceived failures over COVID-19. Despite widespread criticism he did not resign. Finally, in September 2021, Boris Johnson decided that his position was simply no longer tenable and removed him from the Cabinet.
3. To promote ministers or bring new ministers into government: Cabinet Reshuffles are a chance to bring in new members to the Cabinet and to give promotions to those who have been successful as Ministers of State or Under-Secretaries of State.
In 2019 Rory Stewart was appointed to the Cabinet. Previously, he had been an Environment Minister and Prisons Minister and was seen to have done both successfully. He was considered a rising star in the party and this small reshuffle (following Gavin Williamson’s dismissal for allegedly leaking classified information to a newspaper) saw his talents rewarded.
4. To refresh the government in the eyes of the public: At times, Governments can simply become stale. The electorate are often frustrated by seeing and hearing the same people on TV and a reshuffle can help refresh the image and popularity of the government.
5. To fill vacancies arising from resignations: If a Minister resigns their position then this will need to be filled. This normally involves promoting someone and therefore requiring a reshuffle. Sometimes, a ministerial resignation can be a useful excuse to hold a wider reshuffle that helps to refresh the government.
The September 2019 reshuffle was instigated by the resignations of Amber Rudd (Minister for Work and Pensions) and Jo Johnson (Minister for Universities). It may have been that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, would have reshuffled his Cabinet anyway, but the vacancies made it either necessary or preferable.
6. To create new government departments: Many Government Departments are centuries old – for example the Home Office or Treasury. However, sometimes new government departments might be created. In recent years, these have included:
-
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Created in 2016.
-
Department for International Trade – Created in 2016.
-
Department for Exiting the European Union – Created in 2016 and abolished in 2020.
Why are reshuffles difficult for Prime Ministers?
One of the problems with the process, and even expectation of reshuffles, is that it is rare for ministers to stay in post for a long enough to build up significant expertise. Gordon Brown was Chancellor for 10 years before becoming Prime Minister whilst Theresa May was Home Secretary for six years before entering Number 10.
However, these examples are very much the exception rather than the norm. Between 1997 and 2015 it was found that the average tenure of a government minister in a particular post is just 2 years. This often means that just when they are building up confidence and expertise in a certain position, they find themselves being moved to an entirely new department with a new team and new challenges.
Most reshuffles result in just a few ministers being moved. If a Prime Minister tries to move too many ministers, there is a danger that they are going to look weak and that their government will look like it is in panic.
A* Zone: Harold Macmillan and the 'Night of the Long Knives'
On the 13th July 1962, Harold Macmillan sacked 7 members of his cabinet, one-third of the total. Harold Macmillan’s Conservatives had won a dominant victory at the 1959 General Election. However, some of their decisions following the election were unpopular, including reversing tax cuts that they had made in 1959. The Conservatives lost a number of by-elections such as in Orpington and Bury South. The loss of by-elections are often a clear indication of popular opinion as the nation focuses in on the constituency in question and they often become a referendum on the government’s performance.
Macmillan became increasingly concerned that Conservative voters may have voted for the Liberal Party at an upcoming General Election. This concern was only heightened when a by-election in Stockton-on-Tees (Macmillan’s former seat) saw the Conservatives lose 18.5% of their vote. Some of Macmillan’s advisers began to suggest that a major change was needed. Macmillan met with his advisers and discussed removing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Selwyn Lloyd. Removing the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a major step for any Prime Minister to make as they are the de facto number two in government. Macmillan was also conscious that his cabinet was relatively elderly and believed that bringing in younger figures would help to ‘freshen up’ the look of the government.
Macmillan had not planned to conduct the reshuffle until after the Summer recess, however, word was leaked about his plans to the press and he was therefore pushed into doing it earlier. This made it looked rushed and impulsive, even though he had actually been considering it for a very long time. It was described by the press as the 'Night of the Long Knives' and seen as a particularly ruthless move.
Selwyn Lloyd was sacked as Chancellor and later became Speaker of the House of Commons. Contrary to reports, Lloyd reacted to the decision gracefully. Over the next three days, seven members of the cabinet were replaced. The reshuffle was the largest in British history and was widely mocked in the press (hence its nickname) but was greeted relatively well within the Conservative Party. It also seemed to shore up MacMillan’s position temporarily, although a number of scandals, including the Profumo Affair, left him politically vulnerable before he resigned due to ill-health in 1963.
"Friends in business used to say, ‘We all have to take tough decisions to get the right top team – why all the fuss about political reshuffles?’ To which I would reply, ‘Yes, but you don’t have to appoint your entire team on the same day, in full view of the world’s television cameras. And the ones you sack go away. The ones I sack sit behind me and plot my downfall." David Cameron – For The Record
The organisation of government in the UK
What is the importance of Cabinet Committees?
In addition to the full Cabinet, there are a number of Cabinet Committees.
These Cabinet Committees and their membership are decided by the Prime Minister and are headed by either the Prime Minister or another Cabinet Minister. Most Cabinet Committees have around five members. Some Cabinet Committees are permanent such as the Economy and Defence Cabinet Committees. Others may be temporary; for example there was a Cabinet Committee for the 2012 London Olympics.
Key decisions are now often made in Cabinet Committees, with the decision then passed up to the full Cabinet for distribution. This has increased the power of the Prime Minister over the Cabinet because the Prime Minister strictly controls both the creation and membership of the Committees.
Current key Cabinet Committees
-
National Security Council: PM (chair), Deputy PM, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, Attorney General.
-
Home and Economic Affairs: Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chair), Deputy PM, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Justice Secretary, Minister for the Cabinet Office.
-
Union and Constitution: PM (chair), Deputy PM, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Justice Secretary, Secretary of States for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, Leader of the Commons, Leader of the Lords, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Attorney General, Minister for the Cabinet Office.
During wartime it is also common for a War Cabinet - effectively a Cabinet Committee of the most senior ministers - to exist. This was first used during World War One, but has also been used in major wars since. In May 2018 a meeting of Senior Ministers to discuss Brexit was nicknamed ‘The Brexit War Cabinet’.
What is the role of the Cabinet Secretary?
The Cabinet Secretary is the most senior member of the Civil Service (not an MP!). The current Cabinet Secretary is Chris Wormald. He is the Head of the Civil Service and also runs the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office has three key roles:
-
To support the Prime Minister as leader of the Government
-
To support the Cabinet in its implementation of policy
-
To coordinate intelligence of security matters
The Cabinet Secretary also sits on Cabinet Meetings and takes the Minutes of those meetings. The Cabinet Secretary will also often be used by the Prime Minister as an impartial arbitrator of political disagreements between Ministers.
The previous Cabinet Secretary for Sunak (and for Starmer until December 2024), Simon Case, was in a very difficult position. He was initially in charge of the investigation of Partygate, but had to give up the role to Sue Gray when it emerged that he may have held parties himself. He then came under fire for a series of WhatsApps leaked from Matt Hancock's communications, which showed Case being very critical of Johnson and Sunak in messages to other ministers. He was also been accused of mishandling the independent investigation into bullying allegations against the Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab. It is obviously an issue if the Cabinet Secretary does not behave in a neutral, impartial manner given that they are an unelected official and are supposed to serve the business of good government without personal bias.
How has Cabinet government changed over time?
Increasingly in recent years it has been seen that the Cabinet has become as decision-ratifying (confirming), rather than decision-making body, which has increased the power of the Prime Minister. Commentators note that there are now different mechanisms and groups through which major Government decisions are made:
-
The Inner Cabinet: This refers to informal meetings by Senior Members of the Cabinet. Such members might include the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. The existence of an ‘Inner Cabinet’ enhances the control of the Prime Minister as they are able to keep powerful figures in the Cabinet under a close watch in an environment where they cannot draw on others for support.
-
The Kitchen Cabinet: Most Prime Ministers also have what is known as a ‘Kitchen Cabinet’. This group is made up of some Cabinet Members but also Special Advisors (SPADs). It provides an informal decision-making mechanism, the membership of which can be more tightly controlled by the Prime Minister. In this environment unelected officials can become powerful and even dominant.
-
Cabinet Committees and Sub-Committees: The use of Cabinet Committees allows the Prime Minister to assert his personal authority over the policies of the Cabinet. Increasingly, in recent years there has also been a growth in Cabinet Sub-Committees.
-
Bilaterals: Bilaterals are meetings between the Prime Minister and individual Secretaries of State. Only the PM and that Minister know exactly what has been said. The increasing number of these in recent years has been criticised as being one of the reasons why government has become less transparent.
How did the Cabinet change under Tony Blair?
Some of the most significant changes in the way the Cabinet operated came during the Prime Ministership of Tony Blair, between 1997 and 2007. He operated what has been called a Sofa Government. This was where key decisions would be made by a small group of advisors, away from the rest of the Cabinet. Importantly, as many of these figures were not elected, they were not accountable to anyone apart from Blair himself. Key figures included:
-
Jonathan Powell - Downing Street Chief of Staff.
-
Alastair Campbell - Downing Street Director of Communications.
-
Sally Morgan - Director of Government Relations, in charge of smoothing relations between Blair and the Labour Party (this was especially critical in the build-up to the Iraq War!)
-
Pat McFadden – Political Secretary.
How has Cabinet government been marginalised?
-
The personal authority and power of the Prime Minister alone has grown in contrast to the collective power of the Cabinet over time, particularly for charismatic PMs like Blair or Thatcher.
-
The Cabinet itself has become something of a ‘network’, with meetings being ceremonial more than anything else. The real work tends to occur elsewhere, meaning that the Cabinet’s involvement in actual work tends to be minimal in many cases of political decision-making.
-
There has been a shift in policy-making functions to 10 Downing Street itself, therein extending Prime ministerial control and subverting any real Cabinet power.
-
The Prime Minister still conducts much government business on a bilateral business, insofar as reaching agreements with ministers on policy, prior to meetings, and then presenting the decision to the full Cabinet.
Changing Cabinet tendencies
-
In 1945, PM Clement Attlee held two Cabinet meetings per week.
-
However, from 1969 there has only been one Cabinet meeting per week (in normal circumstances).
-
In the 1970s, there were approximately 60 meetings per year.
-
However, by Blair's premiership, the average was 40 meetings per year.
-
Many of Blair's Cabinet meetings lasted less than an hour, with the record at 30 minutes.
How has the use of Special Advisors (SPADs) grown over time?
A Special Advisor (SPAD) is someone who is not elected and is also not a civil servant but who is appointed by a Minister to offer special advice. In recent years Special Advisors have become increasingly common in the UK Political system. In particular, the increase in the use of Special Advisors by Government Ministers has become an increasing threat to the position of Senior Civil Servants. Many Special Advisors work in Downing Street, directly supporting the Prime Minister. Special Advisors have two broad roles:
-
To make the Government less reliant on the work of the Civil Service.
-
To help the Prime Minister keep up-to-date with often far better-staffed and better-resourced Government departments.
Special Advisors are not always paid for out of Government budgets; this means they are not constrained by the principles of the Civil Service that we have previously discussed. Many are employed by the political party in Government. However, some are paid from the public purse. Traditionally each cabinet minister has been allowed to appoint two Special Advisors. However, the first ministerial code of Keir Starmer removed this rule. There were 128 SPADS in government as of 31st March 2024. The overall cost of this was £14.4 million.
The growth of Special Advisors is a significant reason for the growth of the ‘10 Downing Street Machine’. As of March 2024, there were 43 SPADS working in Downing Street alone.
Some special advisors are nicknamed ‘Spin Doctors’. Spin Doctors became increasingly common after Labour’s landslide victory at the 1997 General Election. The job of a Spin Doctor is to sell the message of the Government and control the coordinated message being given by Ministers across the Government to the general public. One of the big criticisms of Spin Doctors is that they have become incredibly powerful over elected Government Ministers, despite not being elected themselves.
Civil Servants
SPADs
Civil servants are expected to stay strictly neutral and offer only impartial advice. They cannot offer 'political' advice, e.g. the impact a policy may have on a party's popularity with the general public.
SPADs are employed by the government of the day and serve that particular partisan government, rather than the 'national interest' - they are therefore able to offer party-related advice.
Civil servants often try to remain anonymous and out of the limelight. Even very high-profile civil servants like the Cabinet Secretary are lesser-known.
SPADs can be highly public figures who make regular media appearances and hold press briefings on behalf of the government, like Alastair Campbell.
Civil servants are permanent fixtures since they serve the State rather than the government; if the current government loses power, they will continue to serve the next government. Therefore, they will often offer advice with a "long-term" view of things.
SPADs' jobs are tied to the existence of the current government - if the government collapses, they will lose their position. Therefore, they may offer advice based on short-term considerations and personal interest, which may lead to controversy.
Downing Street SPADs and controversy
Alastair Campbell: Alastair Campbell became Blair's Director of Communications in 1997. He is seen as the founder of modern-day 'Spin Doctoring'. He was a former newspaper political editor and was therefore seen as well-placed to try and control the media narrative. He became famous for being a domineering figure in government who controlled elected Ministers (he was the inspiration for the swearing Malcolm Tucker in "The Thick of It." However, his unelected influence made him a controversial figure. Most infamously, Campbell was accused of 'sexing up' the 'Dodgy Dossier' of purported evidence of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq (2003).
Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill: Timothy and Hill were both Joint Chiefs of Staff to Theresa May, appointed in 2016 when she became PM. Timothy and Hill organised the Conservative Party election campaign in 2017 and were also responsible for writing the bulk of the manifesto, including the poorly received social care reform proposals (the so-called 'dementia tax'). After the poor 2017 result, there was massive backlash from Conservative ministers and Timothy and Hill were forced to resign their positions.
Dominic Cummings: Cummings had previously been a SPAD to Michael Gove, and also headed the Vote Leave campaign for Brexit. He then became a SPAD for Johnson, as PM, and was effectively Johnson's Chief of Staff. Cummings had a number of difficult relationships, notably with Sajid Javid, and this was one of the reasons that Javid resigned as Chancellor in 2020 (because Cummings insisted that he should be able to appoint Javid's SPADs). During the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, Cummings broke lockdown rules by driving to Barnard Castle with the excuse that he was "testing his eyesight" - his obviously false excuse led to a lot of criticism of the government and probably less people complying with lockdown rules, but he was not sacked as Johnson saw him as too important. Cummings left Downing Street after a long period of tension in November 2020, and since then has leaked significantly damaging information about Johnson.
.jpg)
SPADs have a beneficial impact on politics
SPADs have a negative impact on politics
It allows constant access to a source of advice from people that they know will be loyal and share their political sympathies. Unlike Civil Servants who have been chosen by someone else, Special Advisors are there because the Minister wants them to be.
Hiring Special Advisors confers power to individuals who are not elected and are not appointed due to their experience, but due to the personal preferences of a particular Minister, SPADs can therefore be of variable quality.
SPADs can offer political advice that Civil Servants are not allowed to do. For example, when creating a policy SPADs will be able to look at the electoral impact in a way that Civil Servants cannot.
Some Special Advisors became so powerful that they can even direct Government Ministers, including those in the Cabinet. The most famous examples of these are Campbell and Cummings.
SPADs can offer a different perspective on issues to Civil Servants. In particular, Civil Servants are often more risk adverse than SPADs and SPADs can offer more radical approaches to issues.
Civil Servants are expected to uphold the Nolan Principles and the Civil Service code. The expectations on SPADs are much more subjective and down to the discretion of the minister.
The best SPADs can become subject experts and are retained within departments even when their Minister leaves for another department.
Special Advisors can ‘go native’ and put the considerations of their own minister above all else, to the detriment of wider government.
Systems of government in the UK
Cabinet, prime ministerial and presidential government
Political commentators have increasingly argued that Britain has moved away from having a Prime Ministerial and Cabinet style of government to having a Presidential Government style of government.
A Prime Ministerial Government is one in which the Prime Minister is dominant over the Cabinet and Parliament. A Cabinet Government is one in which the Government works more collectively and the Prime Minister acts mostly as a facilitator for government. In a Presidential Government the leader has massive personal authority and acts as de facto Head of State. There have been examples of these different facets in recent years, which are illustrated in greater depth in the case studies below.
The following characteristics would be associated with Cabinet Government:
-
Cabinet is directly accountable to Parliament.
-
Government policy is decided collectively by cabinet with the Prime Minister being ‘first among equals’ and merely acting as a facilitator.
-
Government is carefully co-ordinated by Cabinet Members.
-
Cabinet collectively manages parliamentary business.
-
Cabinet Members are left to manage their department as independently as possible.
The following characteristics would be associated with Prime Ministerial Government:
-
PM is more than ‘first among equals’ – they dominate/dictate cabinet business.
-
PM dominants policy making – cabinet becomes a rubber stamp.
-
PM makes full use of prerogative powers.
-
PM acts as principal spokesperson – media focus on PM.
-
PM supervises individual departments – ministers must clear important decisions with the PM.
The following characteristics would be associated with a Presidential Government:
-
PM behaves as if they were Head of State.
-
PM controls all major policy developments.
-
PM has massive personal authority.
-
PM is the focal point of government and the state.
The PM is now 'Presidential'
The PM is not 'Presidential'
In Britain there is often a situation which Lord Hailsham called the ‘elective dictatorship’. This emanates from a combination of the the fusion of powers and the First Past the Post Voting System. This means that governments can have significant majorities and are unlikely to be defeated in Parliament. For example, Blair (179), Starmer (174) and Thatcher (144). Between 1945 and 2019, 99.2% of all divisions (votes) in Parliament were won by the government.
The situation of ‘elective dictatorship’ depends, in part, of the size of a parliamentary majority. If a PM does not have a strong majority, they will struggle to assert their position. For example, Theresa May - who had a minority government between 2017 and 2019 - lost 33 votes in the House of Commons (more than her 5 predecessors combined between 1979 and 2016), including a catastrophic loss on her flagship Brexit Deal by 230 votes. This was the largest defeat in modern parliamentary history.
The Executive in the UK has significant control over Parliament. Standing Order 14 mandates that the Government control all business in the House of Commons apart from 20 opposition days and 13 Private Member’s Fridays. This allows the government to consistently assert its own agenda in the House of Commons.
Whilst the government have significant structural control over Parliament, PMs can be damaged by significant rebellions from their backbench MPs especially on controversial and contested issues. For example, Blair lost a vote on 90-day detention for terror suspects despite having a 66-seat majority in Parliament.
The Prime Minister possesses significant powers by virtue of the royal prerogative. These are powers that traditionally belonged to the monarch but are now exercised by the PM and government. Because these powers do not emanate from Parliament, they cannot be effectively scrutinised by Parliament.
The royal prerogative powers have been increasingly held to be justiciable. In both of the Miller cases (2017, 2019), the government lost arguments that their actions were beyond the purview of the courts the Supreme Court said that the government had acted ‘ultra vires’.
The PM is the unmistakable leader of their party with no obvious rival in terms of their structural power over it. They shape the party's ideological direction, the 'leadership' of the party, internal promotions and demotions, and the way in which it communicates with voters and members.
A PM who does not keep their party onside can be removed as party leader and PM, through a party vote of no confidence. Liz Truss resigned as party leader in October 2022 having been told by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee that she had lost the support of the party.
The PM has significant powers of patronage. These include being able to appoint their own Cabinet without the ratification of Parliament and to appoint peers to the House of Lords. These powers of patronage make it more likely that members of their party will 'toe the line', as they rely on the PM to advance their careers, and to maintain their positions in the Cabinet - they can be removed if they lose the favour of the PM.
The PM is often forced to make appointments that are not to their political taste due to the wider political factors at play. For example, Theresa May had to include Boris Johnson in her Cabinet because he was a ‘big beast’ who would be politically dangerous outside of it. Further, Tony Blair was unable to sack Gordon Brown despite their significant range of disagreements as Brown would be a rival for the leadership.
The growth in media presence of the Prime Minister since the introduction in the 1990s of 24/7 News has accentuated the view of the Prime Minister being more ‘presidential’. Blair, for example, undercut his Chancellor Gordon Brown by announcing impromptu health budget measures on a Sunday morning TV show in 2000 (to which Brown reportedly fumed in a Downing Street clash "You've stolen my f*cking budget!")
The ability to appear ‘presidential’ is dictated much by the personality of PM in question. For example, Gordon Brown struggled to match the charisma and charm of Tony Blair and consequently appeared less presidential despite inheriting his stable government majority. Liz Truss, despite inheriting Johnson's stable majority, was similarly uncharismatic and became a figure of constant ridicule in the British media.
There has been a growth in the ‘Downing Street Machine’ which has a tendency to act as the supreme government department. There has been a growth in non-elected Special Advisors (SPADs) that make the PM more powerful. A particular examples of SPADs circumventing Cabinet ministers include Sajid Javid's resignation as Johnson's Chancellor in 2020 when Dominic Cummings demanded greater control over the Treasury and Javid's SPADs.
Other government ministers can also build up a significant power-base to counter the power of the Prime Minister. This is particularly the case with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his book ‘The End of the Party’ Andrew Rawnsley used the phrase the ‘TB-GBs’ to describe the tension and power struggle between Blair as Prime Minister and Gordon Brown as Chancellor. Blair was ultimately forced to resign from his position in 2007 and replaced by Brown as Prime Minister.
Methods of governing have emerged that make Cabinet Government less important. These include the use of so-called ‘Kitchen’ or ‘Inner Cabinets’. It is argued that Cabinet has now become a ‘decision ratifying’ rather than ‘decision-making’ body.
The PM cannot entirely disregard their Cabinet as a serious Cabinet revolt is likely to be the end of a premiership. The end of Johnson's premiership was kick-started by the resignations of Sunak (Chancellor) and Javid (Health Secretary).
PMs have enormous power to set the political agenda. When they are struggling, they can re-set the political agenda through their use of the media, Cabinet reshuffles, refocusing on a different area of policy (e.g. domestic to foreign).
PMs are beholden to what Harold MacMillan called ‘Events, Dear Boy, Events’. For example, 9/11 completely changed the nature of the premiership of Tony Blair whilst the COVID-19 pandemic changed the focus of Boris Johnson’s.
.jpg)
Coming soon
%20(1).jpg)
Case studies of UK Prime Ministers
By examining the political record, policies, and events associated with specific premierships, we can unpick the questions of how effectively the Prime Minister manages events/political outcomes, and how effectively they manage their Cabinets. This may not be the same for all Prime Ministers and certainly changes over time!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Coming soon
_02%20(1).jpg)
Coming soon
Coming soon
.jpg)
Coming soon
Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990)
Personal biography
Margaret Thatcher was born Margaret Roberts in Grantham, Lincolnshire, in 1925. She was the daughter of a local grocer. She attended a grammar school and won a scholarship to attend Somerville College at the University of Oxford. Whilst at Oxford, she became one of the first female president of the university's student Conservative Association.
After graduating from university she worked as a research chemist before qualifying as a barrister. In 1951 she married Dennis Thatcher. In 1959 she was elected to Parliament as the MP for Finchley. Between 1970 and 1974 she served in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Education and ran for the Conservative Leadership in 1975, replacing Edward Heath as leader, making her the first female leader of a major party.
Electoral history as Prime Minister
1979: The 1979 General Election was held after the government of James Callaghan lost a Parliamentary Motion of No Confidence by 311-310 votes. The Conservatives ran a highly effective campaign helped by the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising agency. Their slogan, “Labour isn’t working” was effective in focusing the campaign on economic issues where the Labour Party had lost credibility since the Winter of Discontent. Thatcher outlined free-market approaches to economic policy. The Conservatives won a solid, but not overwhelming, majority of 43 seats.
1983: Thatcher called the 1983 General Election for June 1983 and the Conservatives won a landslide majority of 144 seats. Thatcher’s personal popularity was a significant factor in the aftermath of the British victory in the Falklands War in 1982. The Conservatives were also helped by the divisions within the Labour Party. Under its leader, Michael Foot, the Labour Party had adopted a radical left-wing manifesto which included withdrawal from the EEC, unilaterally nuclear disarmament and the abolition of the House of Lords. The Labour Manifesto was famously dubbed by Labour MP Gerald Kauffmann as "the longest suicide note in history", and several Labour MPs broke away to form a separate centrist party, the Social Democratic Party (SDP).
1987: The General Election of June 1987 was heavily influenced by the economic recovery since 1979. For example, at the time of the election, inflation was at its lowest level since the 1960s. Whilst the Labour Party had moved to a more centrist platform under Neil Kinnock, Labour were still struggling from the split that led to the creation of the SDP and the party was still not unified by Kinnock. Whilst the Conservatives lost seats compared to 1983, they still won an extremely healthy majority of 102 seats.
Key events of Thatcher's premiership (domestic)
1979: Thatcher won a majority of 43 seats and becomes Britain’s first female Prime Minister.
1979: Thatcher introduced monetarist policies which attempted to tackle inflation by raising interest rates and in doing so rejects Keynesian economics. This led to austerity measures and significant cuts in government spending whilst VAT was raised to 15% from 10%.
1980: Under pressure to reverse her economic policy due to rapidly rising unemployment rates, which was up by 1.5 million since 1979, Thatcher famously told the Conservative Party Conference "To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning."
1980: In the Housing Act (1980) Thatcher introduced the ‘Right to Buy’ policy which allowed secure renters to buy their council owned house. By the end of her premiership around 1.5 million council tenants had bought their home from the local authority.
1983: Thatcher won a landslide majority of 143 seats.
1983: As part of her free market plan, Thatcher began the process of privatising key British economic assets such as British Telecom (1984), British Gas (1986) and British Airways (1987).
1984: During the Conservative Party Conference in 1984 in Brighton the hotel housing key Conservative figures was bombed by the IRA. This led to five deaths. Thatcher continued with the Conference and spoke just hours later saying “All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail. That is the clear message from Brighton.”
1984-85: The National Union of Mineworkers begins a strike led by its leader Arthur Scargill. The Conservative Government had prepared for this action in advance and after just over a year the strike was over. This was not just a blow to the NUM, but to Trade Unions across the UK.
1986: The Conservatives faced a political scandal involving the sale of the Westland Helicopters company. Thatcher was criticised for her handling of the situation and Michael Heseltine, a key potential rival, resigned from the government over the dispute.
1986: Thatcher took the decision to abolish the Great London Council and six other Metropolitan Councils. Under Labour leader Ken Livingstone, the Greater London Council had doubled its spending in three years and Thatcher wanted its powers given back to local councils.
1987: Britain experienced an economic boom between 1984 and 1988. Britain’s growth was the highest growth rate of 16 comparable OECD countries. This was coined the ‘Lawson Boom’ after the Chancellor, Nigel Lawson. In his 1987 and 1988 Budgets, Lawson cut the standard rate of income tax by 4p and cut the top rate of income tax by 20p in every pound. However, inflation rose so Lawson had to double interest rates to combat this.
1988: Section 28 was added as an amendment to the Local Government Act (1988). This said that local councils across the UK could not promote the acceptability of homosexuality. This followed a 1987 Conference Speech where Thatcher had said "children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay."
1989: The Poll Tax was introduced. This replaced the Community Charge and was a flat rate of tax paid by all citizens for local services. This tax was incredibly controversial leading to protests and riots across the UK.
1990: Thatcher was challenged for the leadership of the Conservative Party by Michael Heseltine, a One Nation Conservative. Whilst she won the first round, she was told by key members of her Cabinet that she could not win and resigned as Conservative Party Leader and Prime Minister.
Key events of Thatcher's premiership (international)
1979: At the European Council meeting Thatcher argued that Britain was paying too much into the EEC budget when considering the benefits they were receiving. She began negotiations that would see Britain given a 66% rebate on its contribution to the EEC budget by 1984.
1980: Thatcher formed a key relationship with US President Ronald Reagan and was a firm critic of Communism. It is from the USSR that Thatcher received her nickname of the Iron Lady – the saying was first attributed to a Soviet journalist. Thatcher supported efforts to protect the West from Communism, including Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative. Whilst Thatcher was firmly opposed to communism, she developed a cordial relationship with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev whom she publicly referred to as ‘someone with whom she could not business’. This was a key factor in the thawing of Cold War tensions from 1985 onwards.
1980: When the Embassy of Iran was held hostage by gunman in April 1980, Thatcher ordered the SAS (British special forces) to take back the embassy. This was the first time in 70 years that UK armed forces had been deployed to deal with a threat on British soil.
1982: After the Argentinian Armed Forces invaded the Falkland Islands in April 1982, Thatcher organised a British Task Force to retake the Islands. Argentinian Forces surrendered in June 1982. Many critics had doubted the ability of the British Armed Forces to take back the Islands, but Thatcher succeeded in doing so.
1984: Thatcher negotiated the handover of Hong Kong to China on the condition that Hong Kong would retain significant political autonomy over its own affairs. The actual handover happened under Tony Blair in July 1997.
1985: Thatcher’s government controversially opposed sanctions against the Apartheid Government in South Africa, which refused to grant political and civil rights to African citizens. This caused tension with other Commonwealth Heads of Government and reportedly also led to tensions with the Queen, Elizabeth II.
1985: Thatcher signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement with the Republic of Ireland. This gave the Republic an advisory say in the future governance of Northern Ireland. This was the first time the Republic had been formally involved in the future of Northern Ireland since the 1920s.
1988: Whilst Thatcher had campaigned vigorously to remain in the European Economic Community in the Referendum of 1975, she became increasingly sceptical about the direction of travel. She was strongly opposed to further European Integration and the creation of what was perceived to be a European super-state. In her 1988 Bruges Speech she outlined her approach in saying that Britain had “not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain only to see her reforms undermined by a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels."
1989: Britain joined the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Thatcher agreed to do this after her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, and her Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, said they would resign if she did not. Membership of the ERM pegged the value of the British Pound to that of the German Deutschmark.
Thatcher maintained a high degree of control
Thatcher did not maintain significant control
Policy:
-
Economic Policy: Thatcher was able to bring in a wide variety of economic reforms. Her monetarist policies saw inflation drop from 17.2% in 1979 to 4.6% by the end of her premiership. Thatcher had said when becoming Prime Minister that her main aim as PM was tackling inflation. She also oversaw widespread deregulation in the economy and oversaw both the privatisation of major industries and the housing market, with 1.5 million citizens buying their council home through the Help to Buy Scheme. The fact that most of Thatcher’s economic policies were not reversed by New Labour (1997-2010) indicates her significant economic legacy.
-
Trade Unions: Through a series of reforms, Thatcher was successful in her aim of reducing the power of trade unions. Thatcher believed that the power of Trade Unions was a significant barrier to economic progress. Thatcher passed legislation that reduced the power of trade unions, such as the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act (1984).
Policy:
-
Unemployment: Thatcher was never able to get control of unemployment whilst in Government. In 1979, unemployment was around 5.5%, however, by 1984, it had risen to 11.9%. Whilst it dropped by the end of her premiership in 1990 to around 7.6%, this was still significantly higher than when she took office. Thatcher was criticised as saying that “Unemployment is the price we have to pay for getting inflation down. That is the primary objective” as many people interpreted this as an attack on the working class in deprived former industrial areas who were most likely to suffer from unemployment.
-
Inequality: Economic inequality grew during Thatcher’s premiership. The Gini coefficient, a key measure of income equality, went from 0.25 in 1979 to 0.34 in 1990. The share of income going to the top 10% of earners also increased. In 1979, 21% of total national income went to the wealthiest 10% of Britons but by 1990 this had risen to around 28%. Thatcher defended this in her very last PMQs when questioned by Simon Hughes.
Events:
-
The Falklands Conflict: When the Falkland Islands were occupied by the Argentinian Armed Forces in April 1982, most commentators did not realistically believe Britain could retake the Islands. However, Thatcher insisted that Britain should send a Task Force to the Islands. During the conflict, she made a number of key decisions, including sinking the Argentine Cruiser the Belgrano despite it being outside the 200-mile exclusion zone she had set. Later, when questioned on live TV about this decision, she said “The Belgrano was a danger to our ships and to our boys. It was not sailing away from the exclusion zone; it was in an area which was a danger to our ships". Thatcher confounded her critics by taking the Islands back with the loss of just 255 British military personnel (estimates of potential casualties were significantly higher).
-
The Miner’s Strike: During 1984-85 Thatcher was willing to take on the Mining Union’s when Britain faced its most prolonged set of strikes since the 1920s. Thatcher prepared for the strikes by building up large stockpiles of coal and coke at power stations and in other strategic locations. She also ensured supply of coal from abroad could make up much of the potential shortfall. She ordered the police to prevent picket-line violence and to ensure that coal that was mined was transported without being unlawfully interfered with. By winning the Miner’s strike, Thatcher dealt a blow to the whole union movement – a key strategic goal that she possessed.
Events:
-
Poll Tax Riots: Formally called the ‘Community Charge’, what became widely known as the Poll Rax was introduced in 1989-90. It replaced the previous system of taxation for local authorities which was based on property values with a flat rate of tax paid equally by every adult. The tax was first introduced in Scotland in 1989 and then followed in England and Wales in 1990. The tax was seen as unfair by those on lower incomes as it did not consider the means that an individual had to pay it. There were widespread riots and civil disobedience. Around 2,000 people were imprisoned for not paying the tax, including Terry Field, a Labour MP who was imprisoned for 60 days in July 1991. The most significant riot came on March 31st 1990 where up to 200,000 gathered in protest at the Poll Tax and riots left damage estimated at £400,000. Across the country the Police struggled to contain the riots, undermining her authority.
-
Race Riots: A number of riots took place under Thatcher that were linked to ethnic tensions. These included the Bristol Riots of 1980 and the Brixton Riots of 1981. The riots were linked to the socio-economic consequences of Thatcher’s policies. For example, the Brixton Riots of 1981 were triggered by new policing powers that allowed police to stop and search individuals based on suspicion alone. This disproportionately affected the Afro-Caribbean community and was felt to be racist (and symptomatic of broader social inequality in Thatcher's Britain).
Media image:
-
Support of the Murdoch Press: Thatcher cultivated a close relationship with the newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, including The Sun and The Times. The papers were strong supporters of Thatcher and Thatcher and Murdoch developed a symbiotic relationship. For example, Thatcher’s anti-union policies benefitted Murdoch and in return, Thatcher received positive headlines from the powerful media outlets. Thatcher allowed Murdoch to build a media empire that might be considered to be a monopoly, despite her Monopolies and Mergers Commission otherwise working to prevent market dominance by single companies/ individuals.
-
Media Branding: Thatcher successfully created a brand which was carefully cultivated. Her distinctive hairstyle and clothing choices created a brand that resonated with voters. The depiction of Thatcher as the “Iron Lady” was initially meant as a criticism but was adopted as a positive caricature by Thatcher. Thatcher’s Press Secretary, Bernard Ingham, played a key role in promoting her media image. He was well known for strictly controlling the information that went to the media and would brief journalists ‘off the record’ to try to ensure the right message was getting across.
Media image:
-
Clashes with the BBC: Thatcher regularly clashed with the BBC who were still seen as a major source authority in the UK. In particular, she clashed over their coverage of events like the Poll Tax Riots and over the Falklands War. For example in the latter, during the build-up to war, a BBC Panorama programme titled "Can We Avoid War?" was hugely criticised by members of Thatcher's Cabinet. Reporter Peter Snow's phrasing "If we believe the British [Government]..." was condemned by Thatcher's government as "almost treasonable."
-
Spitting Image: Britain’s most famous satirical show made much of its focus a depiction of Thatcher. Thatcher was depicted as an overly domineering figure. Rather than simply being powerful, the program depicted her as a bully towards other members of her government. In one famous sketch Thatcher is sat having dinner with her Cabinet:
-
Waitress to Thatcher: “Would you like to order, Sir”?
-
Thatcher: Yes, I will have a steak.
-
Waitress: How do you like it?
-
Thatcher: Oh, raw please.
-
Waitress: What about the vegetables?
-
Thatcher: They’ll have the same as me!
-
Parliament:
-
Thatcher retained significant control over the House of Commons, losing just four votes in 10 years. Thatcher was able to pass almost all over her wide-ranging economic agenda which revolutionised the British economy and ended the post-war liberal consensus.
Parliament:
-
Thatcher’s authority over Parliament became less clear in the second half of her premiership. In 1986, the Shops Bill was defeated at Second Reading. This remains the last time a government bill has fallen at Second Reading.
-
Defeats by the Lords were frequent (156).
Cabinet:
-
Thatcher managed to purge her party of what she called ‘the Wets’ (One-Nation Conservatives) and replaced them with the ‘dries’. The ‘dries’, including Geoffrey Howe, Norman Tebbit and Nigel Lawson became dominant in Thatcher Cabinets. ‘Wets’ like Francis Pym found themselves removed when she had consolidated her position following her landslide victory in 1983, after which she no longer had the need to conciliate rival factions in the party to the same degree.
-
Thatcher dominated Cabinet meetings and was able to exert her authority as a semi-presidential figure over other Ministers. Thatcher later recalled spending hours sitting in the Cabinet room memorising information and briefs before the Cabinet meeting, so that she could hold them without referring to notes; her impressive command of multiple areas of policy meant that Ministers were kept alert.
-
Thatcher had relatively few contentious resignations during her premiership. In 11 years as Prime Minister, she suffered just 15 resignations from her Cabinet.
Cabinet:
-
The Westland Affair, a political scandal involving the Westland Helicopters company, showed the divisions in her Cabinet. Her Defence Secretary, Michael Heseltine, resigned over the scandal in 1986. He supported the bid of a European consortium to rescue Westland and felt he was ignored by Thatcher. Heseltine left the Cabinet and became a threat to Thatcher's leadership of the party.
-
Despite her strong leadership style, there was significant factionalism, particularly over policies towards Europe. Her Cabinet was divided between those who had become suspicious of further European integration (like Thatcher) and those who wanted to embrace it, like Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson. Eventually, both would resign under the convention of Collective Ministerial Responsibility; Lawson in October 1989 over disagreements about Britain’s membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and Howe over her European Policy. Howe then gave a withering speech in the House of Commons that is often attributed as the beginning of the end of Thatcher’s premiership.
An overall assessment of Thatcher
Margaret Thatcher is undoubtedly one of the most influential figures in British political history. Few, if any, Prime Ministers have overseen such a transformation in British economics and society as Thatcher. Thatcher ended what had become known as the ‘post-war liberal consensus’. Thatcher was undoubtedly a domineering political figure who for most of her time in office held a firm grip of events. However, she is also an example of what Professor George Jone called the ‘elastic band theory’ of Prime Ministerial power. This is the idea that whilst a PM may extend their authority significantly, it always has limits and will 'snap back' when overextended. Ultimately, Thatcher may have introduced her most controversial policy, the Poll Tax, whilst under a perceived aura of invincibility. That policy and her obstinance in seeing it through, combined with divisions over the policy towards Europe, saw her downfall. Thatcher’s legacy may be best summed up in the impact it had on the Labour Party, with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown moving Labour to the right in order to make it electable.
%20(1).jpg)
Professor George Jones used the analogy of an elastic band to explain prime ministerial power. Like a band, a PM can stretch their personal authority over the Cabinet and government. Every Prime Minister will have a different sized band, depending on a variety of factors such as their parliamentary majority and personality. However, each band will have it limits, although a Prime Minister may not know where those limits are. Eventually, a PM stretch their authority too far and the band will snap back, and may even result in their removal from office. In the case of Thatcher, she clearly used her authority in events like the Falklands War (1982) or the Miner’s Strike to win significant political victories. However, in doing so, she may have convinced herself that her metaphorical elastic band was bigger than it was. When she obstinately tried to take on the issues of the Poll Tax and European Integration later in her premiership, this led to her downfall.
Electoral history as Prime Minister
John Major (1990-1997)
Personal biography
John Major was born in Surrey in 1943 and had left school and 16 to support his family. He worked as a bank clerk before moving into politics where he worked for the Conservative Research Department. He was elected as MP for Huntingdon at the 1979 General Election. Under Thatcher, Major rapidly rose through the party and was Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 1987 to 1989. He briefly served as Foreign Secretary in 1989 but was made Chancellor of the Exchequer just three months later. When Thatcher was faced with a leadership challenge in 1990, Major was persuaded to enter the contest as a 'neoliberal' figure after the first ballot in which Thatcher had withdrawn. He won the leadership of the party on the third ballot after Michael Heseltine and Douglas Herd withdrew.
1992: The expectation from pollsters was that the 1992 election would result in a hung parliament but the Conservatives under Major managed to win a majority of 21 seats, securing a fourth consecutive Conservative victory. The Conservative campaign focused on continued economic recovery following a recession in the early 1990s. In this election, the Conservatives won 14.1 million votes, which remains the highest ever received by a party in a General Election as of 2024.
1997: Under John Major, the Conservatives lost the 1997 General Election as Tony Blair’s New Labour secured a landslide 179-seat majority. Whilst the economy remained resilient, the public had become dissatisfied with the Conservatives after 18 years of government. A number of sleaze scandals had hurt the party, and this was especially damaging after Major’s 1993 Conservative Party Conference where he had urged the party to get ‘Back to Basics’ and emphasise values of “decency and courtesy”. The Conservatives had also continued to be rocked by divisions over Europe and particularly the Maastricht Treaty, whilst memories of the ERM debacle stuck with voters.
Key events of Major's premiership (domestic)
1990: Major became Prime Minister following the resignation of Margaret Thatcher. He inherited significant economic difficulties and a party divided over the European Economic Community. The UK economy fell into recession with both high unemployment and inflation. By 1991, unemployment had risen to 2.1 million.
1991: Major launched his ‘citizen’s charter’ to improve performance within the public sector.
1992: Despite pollsters predicting a hung parliament, Major confounded expectations and won a narrow majority of 21 seats in the 1992 General Election.
1992: Black Wednesday took place in the UK. On this day, the UK was forced to withdraw from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism after the pound had been shorted by investors such as George Soros. This was extremely embarrassing to Major and damaged the credibility of the government on the economy. Interest rates had to be raised to deal with the crisis, but the economy did improve by 1993.
1993: The Poll Tax was abandoned and replaced with the Council Tax, a tax set depending on property values.
1993: At the Conservative Party Conference Major launched his ‘Back to Basics’ campaign advocating for traditional moral values and individuals to take more responsibility for their own actions. Embarrassingly, however, the Conservative Party was faced with a number of scandals in the 1990s, some relating to sex, others relating to money. For example, in the Cash for Questions affair, Conservative MPs were found to be accepting money in return for asking questions in Parliament.
1993: A vote on the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty was declared a confidence vote by Major after it appeared that he may lose the vote. He won the vote by 339-299.
1993: Major’s government made significant strides in the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Downing Street Declaration in 1993 affirmed the right of Northern Ireland to determine its own future, independently of Westminster. Major worked with the Republic of Ireland to create a framework for future peace talks and helped to create the groundwork for the Good Friday Agreement (1998) under Tony Blair. In 1994, major paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland announced a ceasefire.
1994: British Rail was privatised with companies being awarded franchises to carry out services. Was a continuation of Thatcher’s neo-liberal economic policies.
1995: With rumours that he would be challenged for the leadership, in 1995 John Major resigned as Party Leader telling potential contenders to ‘put up or shut up’. Major comfortably won the subsequent leadership election defeating John Redwood MP with 66.3% of MPs voting for him.
1996: A major public health care was faced when scientists announced a disease called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) was linked to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), a disease found in cows. This led to the EU banning imports of British beef and was a major threat to British farmers.
Key events of Major's premiership (international)
1991: John Major ordered British forces to join an international coalition against Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait. The war was over very quickly and Kuwait was liberated.
1992: Major signed the Maastricht Treaty which created the European Union (as a more integrated successor to the European Economic Community) and set the framework for the creation of the Single Market and the Single Currency. This led to deep divisions within the Conservative Party.
1992: The Cold War ended. Major had continued the close relationship with the United States (now led by President Bill Clinton) that was cultivated under Thatcher.
1992-1995: The UK played a role in the Bosnian War, participating in the UN Peacekeeping missions and enforcing sanctions against Serbian forces.
Major maintained a high degree of control
Major did not maintain significant control
Policy:
-
Economy: After a difficult first three years of his premiership in economic terms, Major's competent governance oversaw an economic boom which, arguably, Tony Blair and New Labour were later able to claim credit for. For example, inflation reduced from 9.7% in 1990 to just 2.6% by 1997. In addition, unemployment dropped and GDP was strong. For example, in 1996 Britain enjoyed GDP growth of 2.5%, compared with 1.0% growth in Germany and 1.4% growth in France.
-
Northern Ireland: Major progress was made in bringing stability to Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 would not have been possible without the progress made under Major. In particular, winning the concession of a ceasefire from militant groups and getting them to the negotiating table through the Downing Street Declaration on a Northern Irish future to be decided by those in Northern Ireland, was an enormous achievement.
Policy:
-
Maastricht Treaty: Major faced major division from his own party over the Maastricht Treaty. His party was heavily divided between those who yearned for deeper European integration and those who opposed it. Major had not negotiated opt-outs from the treaty to appease the right wing of his party. Whilst this helped him pass this in Parliament, it weakened his position with his European counterparts and arguably sowed some of the long-term seeds of Brexit. In 1993, Major had to call a confidence vote on the Maastricht Treaty, showing how difficult it was for him to pass.
-
Black Wednesday: Whilst the overall picture in the economy was strong by 1997, the stain of Black Wednesday remained. This was a significant international embarrassment for the UK and the Conservatives never truly escaped its legacy and it damaged their economic credibility. Major was accused of not having solved the issue as soon as he became PM.
Events:
-
Gulf War: Major’s handling of the UK’s involvement in the Gulf War was seen to be overwhelmingly competent. In fact, such was the success of the engagement, that Major avoided calling an election soon after so as not to be accused of exploiting the success.
-
General Election: The General Election success of 1992, when it was not expected by pollsters, is much to Major’s credit. Despite advice to the contrary, he campaigned in a very personal manner. He took to campaigning 'spontaneously' from an upturned wooden soapbox, often engaging with difficult crowds in hostile areas. He came across as a character in touch with ordinary voters, particularly as he talked about the normalcy of his upbringing in Brixton. This was in contrast to the Labour Party campaign, which appeared more artificial, infamously ending at a mass 'American-style' rally in Sheffield in April 1992.
Events:
-
Party Scandals: At the 1993 Conservative Party Conference, Major had called for a ‘back to basics’ approach to morality. However, the party was quickly labelled as hypocritical as his party was hit by multiple scandals, including:
-
Tim Yeo Affair: In 1994 the Environment and Countryside Minister resigned after he had fathered a child during an affair.
-
Cash for Questions: In 1994 it emerged that two MPs, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith, had accepted money from Mohamed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods, to ask planted questions in Parliament.
-
-
Black Wednesday: The UK Government under Major had continued the policy of remaining in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, despite Cabinet division. This tied the value of the British Pound to that of the German Deutsche Mark. However, the struggling British economy meant that the Pound was overvalued, and came under huge pressure in the financial markets. Despite raising interest rates by 10% to 15% in a single day and spending billions to 'prop up' the value of the Pound. This did not work, and the Government announced it would withdraw from the ERM. "Black Wednesday" had cost the government as £3 Billion pounds. This was an event over which Major had shown he lacked control.
Media image:
-
Personal Integrity: Despite the many challenges his party faced with integrity issues, Major personally was seen as authentic, down-to-earth and with strong personal integrity. He was seen as an honest politician. This particularly helped him in the 1992 General Election when his ‘soapbox speeches’ were well received by the media and by voters.
Media image:
-
Loss of The Sun: Margaret Thatcher had developed a close relationship with the Murdoch Press and particularly The Sun newspaper. In 1992, the Sun had supported the Conservatives famously with a front page before the 1992 election asking “If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights” and then subsequently running the headline “It’s the Sun Wot Won It”. However, prior to the 1997 election, the Sun endorsed Blair with the headline “The Sun Backs Blair”. Major’s failure to keep Murdoch onside was clearly damaging to him.
-
Media Strategy: The Conservatives under Major relied on traditional media strategies, focusing on press conferences and party broadcasts that emphasised economic competence. However, they faced an increasingly professional media operation under New Labour. For example, in 1994 Tony Blair hired former newspaper editor Alistair Campbell as his Press Secretary. They effectively used positive messages and soundbites to convey their message. Blair actively courted the media in a way that Major was less comfortable doing.
Parliament:
-
Only six defeats: Despite a small majority of just 21 seats from 1992-1997, John Major lost just six votes in the House of Commons during his entire premiership. Three of these defeats with over issues relating to Europe.
Parliament:
-
Narrowing Majority: A series of by-election defeats and defections led to an erosion of John Major’s majority.
-
Maastricht Confidence Vote: Concerned that he may lose a key vote on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, Major declared the vote a Confidence Issue. Whilst this allowed him to win the division by 40 votes, he was weakened.
Cabinet:
-
Poll Tax Repeal: Early in his premiership, Major acted decisively in deciding to remove the unpopular poll tax. Despite the residual loyalty of many of his current Cabinet to Margaret Thatcher, this was publicly supported. This helped Major to establish himself as independent from Thatcher.
-
Approach: Whilst Thatcher had been a domineering figure in Cabinet, Major assumed a much more collegiate and Cabinet-style approach. He encouraged open debate in Cabinet and many of his Cabinet enjoyed the greater freedom of opinion they were allowed compared to their time under Thatcher.
Cabinet:
-
‘Bastards’: In July 1993 Major was caught on camera referring to some of his Cabinet as ‘bastards’ after believing they were leaking information to the press. This showed the difficulties that Major was having in keeping unity and discipline within his Cabinet.
-
Leadership Challenge: In 1995, Major had to resign as leader of the Conservative Party due to division in government and the wider party. He told his opponents to ‘put up or shut up’. One Thatcherite/ neoliberal MP, John Redwood, ran against Major. Major won with 66.3% of Conservative MPs supporting him. However, that fact that he had to take such drastic action to reassert his authority showed the weakened position he was in.
An overall assessment of Major
.jpg)
John Major had a difficult task as Prime Minister for three key reasons. Firstly, he was taking from Margaret Thatcher who was a transformational Prime Minister whom many MPs were still fiercely loyal to. Secondly, after the 1992 General Election, he had a small majority of just 22 seats. Finally, he became Prime Minister at a difficult period economically.
Much of Major’s premiership was consumed by the issues of Europe and the passage of the Maastricht Treaty. Despite serious tension in his party, Major was able to get this policy passed. Unlike his predecessor, Major attempted to govern consensually within the Cabinet and tried to find pragmatic solution to problems. He was less ideological than his predecessor and much more traditional. However, the numerous sleaze scandals in his party haunted him, particularly when he had tried to move ‘back to basics’.
By the end of his premiership, the Conservatives were clearly running out of electoral steam. Yet, when he left office, peace in Northern Ireland was closer than it had been in a generation and the economy was growing. These were both issues that Tony Blair would later be able to take credit for, but it is arguable that the groundwork was laid by Major.
Gordon Brown (2007-2010)
Personal biography
Gordon Brown was born in 1951 in Edinburgh. He had earned his PhD at 31 having been Rector of Edinburgh University aged just 21, one of the youngest people to hold this role, with it even being very unusual to hold it whilst still a student. Brown became an MP in 1983 and joined the Shadow Cabinet of Neil Kinnock in 1989 rising to become Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1992. After the sudden death of Labour Leader John Smith in 1994, Brown agreed to support Tony Blair to be Prime Minister on the understanding that after two terms he would stand down and support Brown in becoming Labour leader. From 1997-2007, Brown served as Chancellor of the Exchequer and oversaw a period of significant economic growth. However, his relationship with Tony Blair became increasingly strained, particularly when Blair refused to step aside for the 2005 General Election.
Electoral history as Prime Minister
2010: Gordon Brown called an election in 2010, a year later than he had been expected to do so. This delay led to suggestions that he was weak and had "bottled" the situation. When the election came, the result was a hung parliament, with no party winning an overall majority. Labour lost 91 seats compared to the 2005 result and won 29% of the popular vote, coming second to the Conservative Party led by David Cameron. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg decided to form a coalition with David Cameron, resulting in Brown leaving Downing Street.
Key events of Brown's premiership (domestic)
2007: Shortly after taking office, Brown dealt with two attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow in June 2007. Both were linked to Al-Qaeda, who had been responsible for the 7/7 bombings in London across the TfL network, and the 9/11 attacks in the United States.
2007: Rising fuel prices led to national protests, particularly from industries like farming and transportation. The government temporarily reduced fuel duties alongside other measures to support industries struggling with the spike in oil prices.
2007: The government faced significant protests from students over the cost of tuition fees. Various demonstrations took place across the UK, including marches and sit-ins. Despite the protests, the government continued its policy of raising tuition fees.
2007: Britain suffered an outbreak of ‘foot and mouth’ disease causing widespread disruption to the livestock industry. Brown's government was praised for its rapid response, having learned critical lessons from the 2001 outbreak when Tony Blair was Prime Minister.
2007: In the 2007 Budget, Gordon Brown announced the removal of the 10p rate of tax. This was part of a bigger reform to taxation that saw the 22% rate of tax drop to 20%. The abolition of the 10p rate meant that the lowest rate of tax paid anyone in the UK would be 20% and led to criticism because it was suggested it could negatively impact low-income households.
2008: Gordon Brown was Prime Minister during the global financial crisis. Whilst this started in the US, it quickly spread across the globe. Brown helped to lead the international response and domestically took the decision to nationalise Northern Rock and bail out other banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland. This led to a significant increase in public debt for which the government was heavily criticised. However, internationally, Brown was credited with taking decisive action to stabilise the financial system.
2009: The UK entered a significant and deep recession that saw its GDP contract by over 4%. In response Brown introduced stimulus measures such as cutting VAT to 15% and offering financial support for business. Despite this, the recession dominated the final year of his premiership.
2009: In 2009 the Daily Telegraph began publishing stories relating to the alleged misuse of parliamentary expenses by MPs - the so-called 'Expenses Scandal'. Whilst this damaged all parties, as Prime Minister, particular focus was placed on Brown’s reaction to the scandal. Brown introduced reforms to the system, including the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) which promoted more accountability and transparency within the system.
2009: The government found itself in a row with Joanna Lumley, a TV personality. Lumley was advocating on behalf of Gurkhas – elite Nepalese soldiers fighting in the British army. Prior to 2009, Gurkhas were not automatically given the right to reside in the UK when they left the British army. Lumley led a campaign to highlight inherently problematic problem of allowing some to fight for their country, but not to reside there after doing so. The policy was subsequently changed by the government.
2010: Brown called the General Election for May 2010. This was a year after it had widely been expected and three years after speculation that he would called a snap election to win his own personal mandate. These delays led to some nicknaming him ‘bottler Brown’. A low point in the campaign occurred when Brown was caught on mic calling a lifelong Labour voter a ‘bigoted woman’ and subsequently being forced to apologise.
Key events of Brown's premiership (international)
2007: Brown inherited the Iraq and Afghan wars from his predecessor, Tony Blair. He aimed to shift the UK’s focus from simply military engagement to reconstruction and development. He announced a gradual withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq with an aim of removing all troops by 2009 (troops eventually withdrew in 2011). During Brown’s period in office, the war in Afghanistan intensified and he faced criticism for the supply situation which led to UK troops lacking the appropriate equipment.
2009: Gordon Brown played a key role the G20 summit that aimed to deal with the global financial crisis. Brown strongly urged states to take a coordinated response to the crisis including introducing economic stimulus packages. He also pushed for greater regulation of international financial markets in the future.
2009: Brown chose not to hold a treaty on the Lisbon Treaty. This was controversial as Labour had promised a referendum on the EU Constitution, which the Lisbon Treaty had effectively replaced. The decision not to hold a referendum was criticised by opposition parties.
2009: Brown was a driving figure in negotiations aimed to tackling climate changes, including at the Copenhagen Summit, where he pushed for global agreements on reducing carbon emissions.
Brown maintained a high degree of control
Brown did not maintain significant control
Policy:
-
Fiscal Stimulus: Following the 2008 financial crash, Gordon Brown acted quickly to stabilise UK financial markets. Firstly, he recapitalised major UK banks, injecting billions of pounds into struggling banks, like Northern Rock, to ensure that they did not collapse. Following this, Northern Rock, and other banks, were taken into public ownership when a buyer for the bank could not be found. Secondly, Brown announced a temporary cut in VAT from 17.5% to 15%. This measure was designed to boost demand for industries struggling in the recession. The government also increased public spending on infrastructure to attempt to stimulate growth.
-
International Role in the economic crisis: During the 2008 financial crisis, Gordon Brown played a key role in leading the international response to the crisis. In 2009, Brown chaired the G20 summit in London. Out of this summit came a global fiscal stimulus package worth $5 Trillion to combat the economic downturn. This action helped to restore confidence in economic markets and moved towards strengthening financial regulation of the international economic system. Brown’s efforts were widely commended for helping to path the way towards economic recovery.
-
Public Health Initiatives: Gordon Brown’s government was proactive in launching new health initiatives. In particular, the government focused on expanding health checks and screening through the introduction of the NHS Health Check program. This aimed to move the NHS to a more preventative model.
-
International Development: Gordon Brown was a prominent proponent of international development and addressing the issue of global poverty. Under Gordon Brown, the International Finance Facility for Education was launched. This organisation sought to support educational project in LEDCs.
-
Child Poverty: Gordon Brown worked to address child poverty during his administration. He expanded tax credits, giving additional support to low and middle-income families; and extended the Sure Start program, which provided early years support to families.
-
Climate Change: Under Gordon Brown the 2008 Climate Change Act was passed. This was the world’s first legally binding piece of domestic legislation to tackle climate change. Brown was also a key figure at COP15 in Copenhagen where he advocated for a global agreement to try to deal with climate change.
Policy:
-
10p Tax Rate: The 10p tax rate was introduced by Gordon Brown in 1999 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was designed to support lower-income earners by reducing the overall amount of taxation they would pay. As Prime Minister, however, he oversaw the abolition of the 10p rate, something he had announced in 2007 in his last budget as Chancellor. The decision to abandon the 10p tax rate was heavily criticised as it disproportionately hit the lowest earners. In particular, Frank Field, a former Government Minister, protested against the policy. Following this, the new Chancellor, Alistair Darling, was forced to take measures to compensate for the change, including increasing the personal allowance. This event suggested Brown had not been able to foresee the adverse effects of this policy change.
-
Inheritance Tax: In 2007, the Conservative Party proposed raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million. This was a policy aimed at middle-class voters. In response, Gordon Brown’s government announced a similar policy that would raise the inheritance threshold to £600,000 for married couples. This was seen by many as an attempt to neutralise a Conservative policy and was seen as a sign of political weakness.
-
2007 Election Decision: In 2007, it was widely expected that Gordon Brown would call a snap election. He was ahead in the opinion polls, and it was suggested that this would give him a personal mandate after taking over as Prime Minister from Tony Blair. However, Brown did not call the election, with widespread criticism subsequently focusing on his indecisiveness. Famously, in Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron said “he [Brown] is the only PM in history to flunk an election because he thought he was going to win it”
Events:
-
Global Financial Crisis: The global financial crisis was an unexpected event. Whilst there were indicators of structural problems in the economy, the scale and speed of the sudden collapse was unexpected. In September 2008, Gordon Brown’s handling of the rapidly developing events showcased his credibility as an economic authority.
-
2007 Terrorist Attacks: In 2007 Britain suffered terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow. Brown quickly convened COBRA meetings and took charge of the situation – including addressing the nation and urging them to remain vigilant of terrorism. Following the attacks, he raised the UK threat level to “critical”.
-
Foot and Mouth: In 2007 Britain suffered a second outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease. Recognising the risks, Gordon Brown cancelled his holiday and returned to London to oversee the response. Brown held crisis meetings with Ministers and also involved pressure groups like the National Farmers Union to get buy-in to the government’s response. Brown used the lessons of the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis, when he was a key member of Blair's Cabinet dealing with the same issue, to his advantage.
Events:
-
Expenses Scandal: In 2009 the Daily Telegraph broke a series of stories highlighting how MPs had been misusing their parliamentary expenses. Brown himself was subsequently required to repay £12,415 that he had claimed for gardening costs. The scandal eroded public trust in politicians. Whilst it impacted all parties, Brown was particularly vulnerable to criticism. The public and the media were critical of the perceived slowness from the government.
-
Release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi: In 2001 Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of the murder of 243 people following the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 near the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Al-Megrahi had been accused of placing a bomb aboard the plane. Following this, al-Megrahi had been imprisoned in Scotland. In 2001, al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds as he was suffering from cancer. He was allowed to return to Scotland. This decision, taken by the devolved Scottish Government, was heavily criticised by public. Brown was also criticised for his perceived failure to speak against the decision of the Scottish Government. It also placed further focus on trade deals that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had reached with the Libyan Leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, despite the intelligence services indicating he may have ordered the Lockerbie bombing.
Media image:
-
Intellect: Gordon Brown’s huge personal intellect was well known. In economic affairs, he was particularly seen as an authority. The media did not attempt to portray Gordon Brown as ignorant - the fundamental understanding of Brown as an intellectual powerhouse was well established.
-
Personal Integrity: Gordon Brown’s sense of personal integrity was central to his public persona. He often emphasised his upbringing as the son of a Church of Scotland Minister. In issues like child poverty and international development, the media portrayed him as someone whose moral compass was a factor in this decision making.
Media image:
-
Lack of personal charisma compared to Tony Blair and David Cameron: Whilst it was accepted that Brown was an intellectual powerhouse, it was also accepted that he lacked the charm of his predecessor, Tony Blair, or his main opponent, David Cameron. Brown struggled to connect on a personal level with the electorate and was often portrayed as clumsy and uncaring. This often led to a negative media portrayal of Brown.
-
‘Bigotgate’: During the General Election campaign in 2010, Gordon Brown suffered an embarrassing episode that has since become known as ‘bigotgate’. When out campaigning in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, Brown has agreed to be mic’d up by Sky News. He had an exchange with an elderly voter called Gillian Duffy, where amongst other topics, they discussed immigration. Brown left the conversation on good terms, but then made the following comments inside the privacy of his own car: “That was a disaster. Well I just... should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? ... She was just a sort of bigoted woman." Unfortunately for Brown, he had forgotten that he was mic’d up and Sky News took the editorial decision to show the footage. To the public, the image of Brown glad-handing Duffy overlayed with his private comments played into the image that he was duplicitous and not an authentic ‘people person’. The episode ended with the bizarre spectacle of Brown travelling back to Rochdale to apologise to Duffy in person.
-
Media criticism of financial crisis: Despite being praised for his reaction to the crisis, Brown was criticised over the financial crisis breaking out in the first place. As Chancellor, Brown adopted a “light-touch” to regulation. Whilst this encouraged growth, critics said it also encouraged excessive risk taking my major financial institutions. In addition, Brown was criticised for not creating a budget surplus in the period of financial growth. In PMQs, David Cameron said that Brown hadn’t fixed the roof whilst the sun was shining.
-
TV Debates: Gordon Brown’s performance in the 2010 TV Debates was criticised in the media. His presentation and body language was perceived as stiff and uncomfortable. Notably, as compared to his opponents, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, he was less comfortable in a debate setting. Brown’s answers to questions were also seen as overly detailed, often at the expense of a connection with voters. Famously, following the first debate in which Nick Clegg had resoundingly won, in the second debate Gordon Brown repeatedly said “I agree with Nick”, which became the most memorable moment of the debate and indicated Brown’s weakness.
Parliament:
-
Brown was Prime Minister for 1,048 days. In this time, he lost just 3 votes in the House of Commons. These all occurred in 2009.
-
Brown managed to pass significant legislation, including the measures taken to stabilise the financial system during the 2008 crisis and recession. This bold set of proposals was controversial, but they were passed in full.
Parliament:
-
Brown struggled in Prime Ministers Questions compared to the more charismatic David Cameron. At times, Brown appeared deeply uncomfortable in Prime Minister’s Questions. He was not able to deploy humour as an attack in the way David Cameron was. For example, after Gordon Brown had hosted a set of celebrities at Number 10, Cameron said in PMQs: “He sits in No. 10 Downing Street waiting for Shakira to call, waiting for George Clooney to come to tea. I have got a bit of advice for him: why does he not give up the PR and start being a PM?”. Brown was not able to respond in a similar fashion.
-
Gordon Brown lost 82 votes in the House of Lords. Of these, the most significant was a defeat on 42-day detention for terror suspects. Despite narrowly winning the vote in the Commons to extend the right to detain terror suspects without charge, Brown was decisively beaten in the Lords. Peers voted by a substantial 309-118 margin.
Cabinet:
-
Government of All the Talents: Brown introduced the concept of trying to create a ‘government of all the talents’ and bringing in experts from outside Politics into government. For example, he appointed Digby Jones to the House of Lords so that he could serve as Minister of State. Jones had previously been the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and was seen as an expert on business issues. This innovative approach to Cabinet government made Brown stand out from his predecessors.
-
Initially Close Relationship with Alistair Darling: Whilst Gordon Brown’s relationship with Tony Blair had been strained when he had been Chancellor, Gordon Brown’s relationship with Alistair Darling had been stronger. This allowed them to work collectively when dealing with the 2008 financial crisis.
-
Lack of Resignations: Despite significant decisions being taken by Brown, some of which were inherently controversial, there were few resignations from Brown’s Government under the convention of Collective Ministerial Responsibility. Only three were clearly because of disagreements with Brown.
Cabinet:
-
Fading relationship with Alistair Darling: Whilst initially they had worked cooperatively, the relationship between Darling and Brown deteriorated after 2009. Tensions developed over economic policy, particularly when Darling stressed the need for spending cuts. One notable disagreement occurred in 2009 when Darling said Britain was facing "the worst economic downturn in 60 years." This statement angered Brown who felt Darling was talking down the economy. In 2009, it was expected that Darling would be sacked as Chancellor, but Brown decided to keep him in a decision – a sign that some people felt Brown had a weak authority as Prime Minister.
-
Resignations: Whilst he faced few resignations overall, two resignations in June 2009 but pressure on Brown. James Purnell resigned as Secretary of State of Pensions and Caroline Flint signed as Minister for Europe. In his resignation letter, which he sent to two national newspapers, he called for Brown to resign saying “I now believe your continued leadership of the Labour Party makes a Conservative victory more, not less, likely”. Flint’s resignation said that she was being used as ‘female window dressing’ by Gordon Brown.
-
Frequent Reshuffles: Brown’s Cabinets were beset by frequent reshuffles. Between 2007 and 2010 Brown conducted four significant reshuffles. Reshuffles are often seen as a chance for a Prime Minister to reassert their authority, and a density of reshuffles can be a significant indicator of a lack of direction or authority in government.
-
Leadership Challenges: In 2008, eight MPs called for a leadership contest within the Labour Party. However, this did not materialise. In 2010, two former Cabinet members, Chris Hoon and Patricia Hewitt, called for a secret ballot of confidence in Gordon Brown’s leadership. This was seen as an attempted coup against the government of Brown. Although it failed, with just months until the 2010 General Election, it was still a dent in Brown’s authority.
-
Division with Blairites: There remained a clear division between Blairites and Brownites in government. Many Blairites supported centrist market-based solutions to issues whilst Brownites leaned more towards social democracy and emphasising the importance of protecting public services via the state. These divisions continued to undermine the sense of control that Brown had over his Cabinet.
An overall assessment of Brown
Gordon Brown faced significant challenges during his tenure as Prime Minister. Firstly, he succeeded Tony Blair, a charismatic and personable leader. Despite his many strengths, Brown was not imbued with charisma. Blair had created an expectation of a modern PM that Brown struggled to match. Secondly, Brown’s premiership coincided with the global financial crisis.
Whilst Brown was internationally commended for his handling of the global response, domestically, the decade he spent as Chancellor of the Exchequer, led to the criticism that his management of the economy had made the crisis more likely.
Brown also struggled with internal party divisions and public perception. His attempts to project a more compassionate and socially just government were overshadowed by the economic crisis and political infighting. The emergence of Blairite and Brownite factions in the party created a media soap-opera and damaged the credibility of the government.
Brown’s premiership was also hurt by the fact that a more electable Conservative leader led the opposition. As Blair had moved Labour to the centre, Cameron had begun to change the face of the Conservative party, preaching ‘compassionate Conservatism’. The electorate that Blair had relied on was not as clearly available to Brown. In the first year of his premiership, Brown had the opportunity to call an election that he may well have won. However, after the financial crisis, a fourth Labour term became increasingly unlikely.
Tony Blair (1997-2007)
Personal biography
Tony Blair was born in 1953 in Edinburgh, Scotland. He attended Fettes College, which has sometimes been referred to as ‘Scotland’s Eton’. He went on to study law at St John’s College, Oxford. After university, he entered the legal profession and became a barrister. He was elected to Parliament as the MP for Sedgefield in 1983, a constituency he represented until 2007. He joined the Shadow Cabinet in 1988 and became Shadow Home Secretary in 1992. Following the sudden death of Labour Leader John Smith, he ran for the party's leadership. He did this after agreeing with Gordon Brown that he would serve two terms as Prime Minister before handing over to him. As leader of the Labour Party, Blair moved Labour to more centrist ground and in 1995, Clause IV of the Labour Constitution was significantly revised. This abandoned the Labour's commitment to the nationalisation of industry and highlighted the free market approach of New Labour. When Blair became PM in 1997, he was in the unusual position in that this was his first-ever role in government.
.jpg)
Electoral history as Prime Minister
1997: Under Blair, Labour won a landslide majority of 179 seats in the 1997 General Election. Blair successfully rebranded the Labour Party as a centrist ‘New Labour’, distancing themselves from the more social-democratic 'Old Labour, and won multiple Conservative seats across the UK. The campaign focused on modernising Britain through constitutional reform, improving public services and maintaining a strong economy.
2001: Following four years in power, Blair called a snap election and won another landslide majority of 166 seats. Labour’s chances in the election were helped by continued economic growth and a sense that public services had improved in the first term. The election was characterised by low turnout (59.4%) and "hapathy" - general contentment with the economic situation leading to lower levels of engagement with politics. The Conservatives had enjoyed a brief lead in the polls in 2000 during the fuel strikes, but this had evaporated by 2001.
2005: Blair comfortably won a third term in office despite controversy over the ongoing Iraq War which began in 2003. This made him the first Labour leader to win three consecutive elections in British history (Harold Wilson had won three elections in the 1960s and 70s, but not consecutively). Although Blair was becoming less popular personally, he and the party as a whole were still perceived as competent. The smaller majority of 66 seats still left Labour with significant power in the House of Commons.
Key events of Blair's premiership (domestic)
1997: The first major policy announcement made by the Blair administration was the Independence of the Bank of England. The bank was given the independence to set interest rates, rather than them being set by the government. This was a significant change in the economic management of the economy.
1997: On 31 August 1997 it was announced that Princess Diana had died in a car crash in Paris. There was a national outpouring of grief, unlike anything the country had witnessed before. Blair was able to present himself as ‘mourner-in-chief’. Famously, in a speech in his constituency of Sedgefield he called her the ‘People’s Princess’. Blair’s warm tribute was in stark contrast to the Royal Family who were perceived by many to be aloof and disconnected with public feeling. This contrast helped to solidify Blair’s image as a moderniser.
1998: After difficult negotiations, Blair, alongside others, managed to oversee the Good Friday Agreement between Republican and Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland. Subject to successful confirmation via referendum in both Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland, new devolved institutions would be set up on a consociationalist basis, where power was shared equally between the two communities in Northern Ireland.
1998: In furtherance of his election promise to be ‘touch on crime and tough on the causes of crime’ the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) introduced new mechanisms for dealing with criminality. Most famously, it introduced ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) to attempt to deal with low-level crime which blighted local communities.
1998: Referendums were held on whether to devolve power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Following the confirmation that devolution was wanted, the Devolution Acts (Scotland Act, Government of Wales Act, Northern Ireland Act) created new devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, the Greater London Authority Act reformed the governance of London, including the creation of a directly-elected Mayor of London.
1998: The Human Rights Act codified the European Convention of Human Rights into British law. This meant that the rights within it could be adjudicated in British courts.
1998: The Teaching and Higher Education Act introduced tuition fees for higher education for the very first time. Prior to this, all university-level education had been funded by the state.
1999: The House of Lords Act (1999) removed all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. It also set out that in the future, 90 of the 92 hereditary peers would be chosen via a by-election amongst other hereditary peers. This was the first stage of a three-part plan, however, by the time Blair left office it remained the only one that had been completed.
1999: The National Minimum Wage Act (1998) established a minimum wage in the UK of £3.60 per hour. This was the first time a minimum wage had ever existed and fulfilled a key manifesto pledge.
2000: Protest against high fuel prices led to blockades of oil refineries, bringing the UK transportation system under pressure. Blair responded by freezing fuel duties (taxes paid on the purchase of petrol or diesel).
2003: The largest recorded public demonstration in UK history took place in February 2003, with 1.5 million people estimated to have attended a demonstration against pending military action against Iraq. The decision was taken to invade Iraq regardless and military action started on the 20th March 2003.
2003: After being accused of ‘sexing up’ the Iraq dossier to sell the case for war in Iraq, Dr David Kelly, a weapons expert, was revealed to have been the source of a BBC report about the government’s conduct. David Kelly was found dead shortly after and a was later found to have committed suicide. The Hutton Inquiry later found the government were not responsible for the tragedy.
2004: The Civil Partnerships Act (2004) allowed same-sex couples to legal register their relationships, giving them similar legal status to a civil marriage. This was the first time that the state had recognised same-sex relationships in law and was a step forward for LGBT+ rights.
2005: On 7 July 2005, London experienced terror attacks on the public transport system in London. Four Islamist extremists detonated bombs on the Tube system and on a double-decker bus. 52 people were killed.
2006: The Labour Party was investigated by the police following allegations that honours, such as appointment to the House of Lords, were being given in exchange for loans for the Labour Party. As part of the investigation Tony Blair became the first sitting Prime Minister to be questioned as part of a criminal investigation.
2006: Blair’s government introduced significant education reforms, including increased funding for schools and the creation of the Specialist Schools Programme, which encouraged schools to develop particular expertise in a certain areas like arts of sports.
Key events of Blair's premiership (international)
1997: On 1 July 1997 Hong Kong was handed back to China, ending 150 years of British rule. It was handed back under the principle of “one country, two systems”, which would allow Hong Kong to maintain its own legal and economic systems.
1999: In 1999 NATO intervened to stop a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. This intervention was carried out through air strikes. Tony Blair played a key role in convincing US President, Bill Clinton, to conduct the strikes. Most famously, Blair gave a speech in Chicago where he talked about the responsibility of powerful nations to protect the world’s most vulnerable people.
2000: Tony Blair launched Operation Palliser in Sierra Leone. This involved British troops being deployed to stabilise the country following a brutal civil war. Blair was widely heralded for the success of the operation and his willingness to commit UK troops to secure its success.
2001: Following the September 11th attacks by Al-Qaeda in 2001, Tony Blair closely aligned himself with the US President, George W. Bush. He committed British troops to the War in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and eliminate Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.
2003: In 2003 Tony Blair authorised the British military to join a coalition in the invasion of Iraq. This was a highly controversial decision because the UN Security Council had not approved the military intervention; key Western allies like France and Germany refused to join; and the British justification for the war was the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
2005: Tony Blair hosted the G8 summit at Gleneagles in Scotland. The focus was global poverty and debt relief. The outcome of the summit was that G8 leaders unprecedentedly agreed to cancel the debt of the all the world's Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC).
.jpg)
Blair maintained a high degree of control
Blair did not maintain significant control
Policy:
-
Centralisation of power: Blair was renowned for centralising power within the Prime Minister’s Office. Using bilateral meetings and so-called ‘sofa government’, decisions taken by Blair were taken outside of Cabinet, with key advisors and trusted Ministers. In particular, these included Alistair Campbell, Jonathan Powell, Peter Mandelson, Gordon Brown and John Prescott. The centralisation of power and the use of unelected advisors allowed Blair to push through his policy agenda without institutional resistance from the civil service.
-
Public Service Reforms: Blair was able to make wide-ranging reforms to public services, particularly as regards the NHS and Education. For example, the introduction of foundation hospitals and academy schools. He showed a clear appetite for trying to modernise public services. He also encouraged innovative mechanisms for funding through Public Finance Initiatives (PFIs), which were a way to encourage the private sector investment in public services.
-
Constitutional Reforms: Armed with a clear mandate from the 1997 General Election, Blair oversaw the most significant period of constitutional reform in UK history. This saw devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, alongside the Human Rights Act, House of Lords Reform and the Constitutional Reform Act (2005).
-
Social Policy: Blair was able to introduce a range of social policies. These included the Sure Start programme for early years education, the introduction of the Minimum Wage, legislation on LGBT+ rights, including the repeal of Section 28 and the introduction of civil partnerships. Child poverty was almost halved between 1997 and 2005.
-
Foreign Policy: Whilst it was often controversial, Blair was able to carry out a wide-ranging foreign policy and showed his considerable influence on the global stage. Notably, in 1999, Blair was essential to persuading Bill Clinton to support action in Kosovo. After the 9/11 attacks, Blair stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States, despite criticisms that he was a ‘lapdog’ of George W. Bush. In 2003, he persuaded Parliament of the necessity of the Iraq War, in which they voted by 312-149.
-
Good Friday Agreement: Undoubtedly one of Tony Blair’s most notable achievements was the Good Friday Agreement. Blair’s diplomatic skills were essential in bringing the unionist and republican politicians to the negotiating table. Blair had the ability to make both sides feel he sympathised with their decision. Blair also worked collaboratively with foreign politicians, most notably Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement put an end to the Troubles and laid the foundations of a consociationalist (dual-community) government in Northern Ireland.
Policy:
-
Dissent against the Iraq War: Dissent grew considerably when it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the government may have overstated the case that there were. By the time he left office in 2007, Iraq had become a foreign policy disaster – despite Blair’s continued justification for it following his resignation.
-
European Union Relations: Blair aimed to position himself as a bridge between the United States and Europe, but was ideologically in favour of more integration into the European Union. However, despite this, he did not hold a promised referendum on the European Constitution in 2004 and did not join the Euro despite Blair’s stated aim to do so. Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was notably more cautious about joining the Euro and set out five tests that the economy would have to be able to meet in order to join. Ultimately, the issue of the Euro indicates Blair had less control over economic policy.
-
House of Lords Reform: Whilst Tony Blair passed the House of Lords Act (1999) this was the first in a three-stage plan that would end with a fully-elected House of Lords. Blair’s reforms removed all but 92 hereditary peers, but went no further. Blair’s inability to push through this reform was due to the opposition of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, with the Weatherill Amendment having to be reached to keep 92 hereditary peers in the Lords; and the lack of political capital that Blair had following the controversy of Iraq.
-
The ‘TB-GBs’: This was what Andrew Rawnsley called the friction between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in his best-selling book The End of the Party: The Rise and Fall of New Labour. As the New Labour government moved into the post-2003 period, the relationship between Blair and Brown was beyond repair. There was regular briefing against each other and Gordon Brown increasingly exercised his control over economic policy at the expense of Blair.
-
Anti-Terror Legislation: Following the 7/7 Bombings in London Blair tried to increase the power of the police to deal with terror suspects. This was challenged by the judiciary, for example in A. v Home Secretary, and by Parliament. In November 2005, a proposal to allow the police to detain terror suspects for 90 days without charge was defeated by 322-291, the first defeat that Blair had experienced in the House of Commons.
-
Millennium Dome: The Millennium Dome Project turned out to be an embarrassment for Blair. The Dome was meant to highlight British culture at the turn of the century. Blair said the Dome would be “a triumph of confidence over cynicism, boldness over blandness, excellence over mediocrity”. However, it was largely a flop and did not attract the number of visitors expected. Whilst it was estimated to cost £399 million, it ended up costing £789 million.
Events:
-
Death of Princess Diana: The death of Princess Diana on the 31st August 1997 was an excellent example of Blair’s ability to manage events. Blair’s immediate response captured the public mood, particularly with his epitaph of the ‘People’s Princess’ for Diana. However, he was also shown as able to influence the conservative institution of the monarchy to respond better to the public mood. For example, Blair eventually convinced Queen Elizabeth II to break protocol by raising a flag at half-mast over Buckingham Place. In addition, the Queen was persuaded to give a royal ceremonial funeral and a live television address to the nation, despite Diana no longer being a member of the Royal Family following her divorce from Charles.
-
Fuel Protests: In the year 2000 rising fuel prices caused national protests that led to huge disruption across the UK. Whilst the government’s was initially criticised for responding to slowly, later Blair was credited with gaining control by negotiating with protest leaders and convincing the Chancellor (Gordon Brown) to freeze fuel duties.
-
Foot and Mouth: The outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease in 2001 was a significant challenge to the farming industry. Whilst criticised by some sectors, Blair’s decision to allow the culling of millions of livestock helped to contain the outbreak. This response was a contrast to the previous government’s perceived mishandling of the BSE crisis.
-
7/7 Bombings: Following the 7/7 Bombings in 2005, Blair was praised for his leadership of the crisis. He left the G8 summit and returned to London to chair a COBRA meeting; his speech following the event helped solidify his reputation as a decisive leader.
Events:
-
Public Sector Strikes: A number of Public Sector strikes took place after 200; these included Firefighter’s Strikes, Teacher’s Strikes and NHS strikes. Blair was often accused of being too confrontational over these strikes and, by the left of his party, not addressing the concerns of public sector workers.
-
Cash for Honours: The Cash for Honours scandal, in which it was implied that high-profile donors to the Labour Party had been offered peerages in exchange, seriously hurt Blair. The fact that he was questioned by the police as a witness to the events damaged his reputation and the integrity of his government.
Media image:
-
Blair’s natural charisma: Tony Blair’s charisma and personal charm made him naturally relatable and helped him to retain public support. Blair had a notoriously long ‘honeymoon period’ as Prime Minister. His ability as an effective public communicator was a major advantage. This was first seen in the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana.
-
Relationship with the Press: Blair had a distinct and dedicated team trying to craft his media image. This was led by Alistair Campbell as Director of Communications. This approach, known as “spin”, was central to his relationship with the press.
-
Support of the Murdoch Press: Having won over Rupert Murdoch before the 1997 General Election, the Murdoch Press continued to support Blair. In particular, the Sun was known for its influential backing of Blair. The support of the Murdoch Press, for example, helped to soften the ground for the invasion of Iraq.
Media image:
-
The Iraq War: Whilst some of the media were supportive of the invasion, this quickly became problematic for Blair. Most notably, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which was the basis of the justification for the war, was increasingly focused on by the media. The relationship with the BBC was harmed by the David Kelly Affair.
-
Leaking of internal rifts: After 2003, Blair suffered from increased leaking of internal party conflicts to the media. It was clear that Brownites and Blairites were both ‘briefing’ the media about each other and the disagreements between the two camps were increasingly playing out in the media.
-
Scandals: Blair suffered from a number of scandals. Given the attacks that Blair had made on Conservative ‘sleaze’ under John Major, the media were quick to pounce on these. Most notably, the Bernie Ecclestone affair in 1997 hurt Blair’s image and was difficult for his media team to manage.
Parliament:
-
Blair was Prime Minister for 3,708 days and lost just four votes in the House of Commons.
-
Blair did not lose a vote in the House of Commons for his first 8 years as Prime Minister.
-
Blair was willing to allow some dissent within the Labour parliamentary party without withdrawing the whip from his MPs. Famously, the future Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn voted against the New Labour Government over 500 times but remained a Labour MP.
-
Blair was renowned as a brilliant House of Commons performer and was rarely bettered in Prime Minister’s Questions.
Parliament:
-
Blair had less control in the House of Lords, losing 460 votes (one every 8 days).
-
In 2004 Blair was forced to invoke the Parliament Act after failing to persuade the House of Lords to support the Hunting Act, which would ban fox-hunting with houds.
-
Despite only losing four defeats in the House of Commons, one was particularly significant. In November 2005 a vote on 90-day detention for terror suspects was defeated by 322-291. At the time, many people saw this as a confidence vote and argued that Blair should resign as Prime Minister.
Cabinet:
-
Centralisation of Power: Blair largely sidelined Cabinet by centralising decision-making through what is often referred to as “sofa government”. For example, the decision to make the Bank of England independent was taken without the formal approval of the Cabinet.
-
Use of Special Advisors: Blair utilised Special Advisors more than previous Prime Minister’s. In 1996 there were 8 special advisors at No.10, but in 1997 this grew to 18. By 2007, there were 23, a growth of 283% during Blair’s premiership. Some Special Advisors, like Alistair Campbell, were undoubtedly more powerful than many Cabinet Ministers.
-
Reduction of Cabinet Meetings: The number of Cabinet Meetings was reduced under Blair. In addition, whilst traditionally Cabinet Meetings had lasted about two hours under John Major, they were reduced to around 45 minutes by Blair. This evidences the reduction in the importance of Cabinet.
-
Management of Gordon Brown: Undoubtedly Blair’s biggest potential rival for the premiership was Gordon Brown. Blair and Brown became rivals, particularly after Blair reneged on his 1994 promise to step-down after two terms as Prime Minister. However, despite their rivalry, Blair and Brown worked together on economic policy, particularly during the public service reform stage of the New Labour Government. The accepted influence of Brown over economic policy helped to stabilise the relationship between them.
-
Lack of Resignations: Despite being Prime Minister for 10 years, Blair faced a distinct lack of resignations under Collective Ministerial Responsibility. In fact, only two resignations (Robin Cook and Clare Short) were openly due to differences on policy.
Cabinet:
-
Resignation of Robin Cook: Whilst Tony Blair suffered very few resignations due to policy, the resignation of Robin Cook in 2003 was particularly stinging. Robin Cook resigned because he did not believe that the War in Iraq would be legal unless a precise UN Security Council Resolution was agreed. He famously said that, “I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.”
-
Rivalry with Gordon Brown: Whilst until 2003 the relationship between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was well-managed, it became more problematic through time. Notably, there was a sense that the government had divided between Blairites like Peter Mandelson and David Miliband, and Brownites, like Ed Balls and Ed Miliband. Blairites focused on market friendly, pro-business approaches to public services, whilst Brownites focused more heavily on social justice and financial stability.
An overall assessment of Blair
One of Tony Blair’s biggest legacy was perhaps his impact on the Labour Party. As leader, between 1994 and 2007, he significantly shifted the Labour Party’s ideology and approach. Under the branding of New Labour, Blair move the party towards the political centre. Rather than opposing the legacy of Thatcherism, Blair embraced the market-orientated policies, arguing that a ‘third way’ approach to politics allowed the economic growth that would drive attempts to achieve greater social justice. In addition, Blair introduced the most significant set of constitutional reforms in history. In particular, devolution changed the fundamental nature of the UK constitution.
As Prime Minister, Blair’s premiership can be divided into two parts: that until 2001 and that post-2001. In his first term, despite foreign policy interventions like in Kosovo (1999) and Sierra Leone (2000), Blair’s focus was on public service reform. Under his leadership, significant change was seen, including the introduction of the minimum wage, expanded higher education and greater spending on the NHS. In addition, through the Good Friday Agreement (1998), Blair helped to end ‘the Troubles’ in Northern Ireland. Yet, after 2001, his premiership became outward facing, as post 9/11 Tony Blair joined the United States in launching the ‘war on terror’. In 2003, Blair joined the United States in ordering military action against Iraq. Whilst this was voted for by Parliament, the developing sense later that the justification for war had been somewhat exaggerated, if not manufactured, tainted his legacy.
As a leader, Blair ‘presidentialised’ the office of Prime Minister. He was criticised for the centralisation power at Number 10 and relying on unelected figures in a far more significant way than previous Prime Ministers. The fact that David Cameron later was nicknamed ‘the heir to Blair’ indicated the way Blair had changed what was expected from a UK Prime Minister.
There is no doubt that Blair was one of the most transformational Prime Minister’s in the UK, but, like Thatcher, his legacy is very divisive. Perhaps this is indicative of that the curse of all Prime Minister’s that Blair himself highlighted ‘you start at your least effective and most popular, and you finish at your most effective and least popular’
.jpg)