Revision Update: The Executive: Cabinet Reshuffle in September 2012

A cabinet reshuffle can provide a valuable insight into:The power of the Prime MinisterThe constraints upon the Prime MinisterThe policy direction of the governmentThe cabinet reshuffle was Cameron’s first significant change to the composition of the cabinet since the creation of the coalition in 2010. The Liberal Democrats decided not to change any of their 5 senior ministers but there were significant changes by the Conservatives.

THE POWER OF PATRONAGE

The power of a Prime Minister to promote, demote, appoint and dismiss someone to the cabinet is normally taken as one of the most significant powers of a PM. The Guardian stated “The source of Downing Street’s vast effective power is the prerogative to hire and fire these secretaries of state…a reshuffle therefore is the nearest we get to to an unalloyed moment of Prime Ministerial power.”^[1]

It is argued that this gives the PM, the power to make or break a politician’s career. Jeremy Hunt gained headlines after his promotion from Culture, Media and Sport to become the Health minister, replacing Andrew Lansley who was demoted to the post of Leader of the House.

Consequently cabinet ministers are likely to be subservient to the will of the PM. They are unlikely to challenge the view of the PM for fear of losing their position and consequently it has been suggested that cabinet may be reduced to nothing more than an “echo chamber” of the PM’s views. Ministers are likely to adopt a sycophantic approach to their dealings with the PM in the hope of promotion in the future. PM’s can also use this power to appoint ministers who might share similar views to them with regard to the ideology and policies of the party.

These factors then allow the PM to dominate cabinet and help establish a prime ministerial form of government where the PM is much more than “first amongst equals”.

With regard to this reshuffle however, it would appear that the PM’s position has not been greatly strengthened for the following reasons:

1. Iain Duncan Smith refused to be moved from his present position as minister for work and pensions.
2. Ken Clarke turned down the position of leader of the House of Commons and demanded a more important role as minister without portfolio. He will not head a specific department but will have a roving brief, sitting on key cabinet committees relating to the economy and national security. Indeed it was suggested that Clarke would act as a sort of deputy chancellor.
3. Baroness Warsi was able to remain in the cabinet even though she lost her position as Chairman for not appearing enough in the media.

These three cases would suggest that the PM does not have a free hand when it comes to making appointments to cabinet.

• Both Clarke and Smith as senior experienced politicians were able to resist the will of the PM and to select themselves for the posts they wanted.
• Their non-selection or demotion could have caused splits within the party. Cameron needed to perform a balancing act so that all wings of the party were represented in government. Clarke, described as the sixth Lib Dem in the cabinet is a Europhile and can be described as a “one-nation Tory”. Smith is liked by the right wing of the party.
• If these senior MPs were not included in the cabinet, they could become critics of the government as they would no longer be bound by the convention of collective responsibility.
• They could also become the focal point for opposition to David Cameron and serve as a rival camp with the potential to serve as a launching pad for a leadership challenge at some future date. There had been considerable discontent with Cameron for concessions made to the Lib Dems and the pace of reform. The appointments might help allay some of these concerns and serve to illustrate how the party can act as a constraint upon Prime Ministerial power.

1. Baroness Warsi and Justine Greening lost their position but as Cameron had stated that he wanted a third of the government to be women by the end of parliament, he needed to name female replacements. Hence the appointments of Maria Miller and Theresa Villiers also revealed another constraint upon this PM power.
2. It could also be said that Cameron’s hands were tied by the fact that a substantial number of Conservative MPs could not be considered for cabinet appointment. Many had been outspoken critics of the coalition agreement and had rebelled against the government over the issue of a referendum on continued membership of the EU. Others might have been regarded as too old, unwilling or simply lacking the ability. Thus the pool of recruitment for a cabinet appointment was limited ensuring that the PM did not have a great deal of scope to impose his stamp upon the executive.
3. Cameron had no control over the five Lib Dem ministers in the cabinet.

The verdict from the Independent was quite damming as it stated:

“…the deafening message of this reshuffle is that his power over the backbenchers has drained alarmingly. He now lacks the strength to keep in place one of the very few senior ministers not merely deemed to know what he is doing, but of whom the punters are by and large fond.”^[2]

A VICTORY FOR OSBORNE?

The reshuffle then would seem to suggest that this was not a great display of unfettered Prime Ministerial power. Indeed, there were signs that Osborne seemed to exercise considerable power over some of the appointments rather than Cameron acting alone.

Osborne was able to gain more allies through the selection of Fallon and Hancock to the Department of Business and Deighton to oversee infrastructure spending.

Similarly, the return of David Laws, the appointment of Andrew Mitchell as Chief Whip and Nicholas Boles (planning) and Mark Prisk (housing) give Osborne increased support within the executive.

Jenkins argues “The key relationship is between Cameron and Osborne. Cameron does not appear to be the dominant partner in the government because he has not manifestly seized control of economic strategy.”^[3]

Whilst it would be an exaggeration to state Osborne’s influence suggests he shares a similar power to Gordon Brown in the Blair era which virtually amounted to a dual monarchy. He is close to the Prime Minister with Milne stating that “Cameron and Osborne are joined at the hip politically^[4]” and the fact that an A team of Cameron, Osborne, Hague and Ed Llewellyn (Cameron’s Chief of Staff) and Kate Fall (deputy Chief of Staff) ran the reshuffle, would suggest that the prime Minister does not have a monopoly of power but rather that power is shared in an oligarchical manner with an inner or partial cabinet of 5 or 6.

The Economist remarked that “David Cameron is by inclination a chairman rather than a chief executive. Not for him the energetic micromanagement of his two predecessors as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.”^[5]. This would suggest that Cameron is happy to delegate rather than being a hands-on Prime Minister.^[6]

THE RETURN OF THATCHERISM?

With regard to the coalition, the reshuffle suggested that the coalition was entering a new phase. The need for consensus and agreement seemed to take less of a priority than the electoral needs of the Conservative party. This view is supported by:

1. The appointment of Chris Grayling as Justice Secretary replacing Ken Clarke. Grayling had a more hostile view toward the Human Rights Act and interventions by the European Court of Justice. His tougher views on sentencing and prisons were at odds with the LIB Dem approach to these issues. Indeed he has been described as an “attack dog” for the right wing of the party and the Guardian described “the change in direction is chilling”.^[7]

1. Michael Fallon was given a position in the Business Department with a view to reining in Vince Cable, the Lib Dem minister. Cable was not advised about the appointment/

1. Owen Paterson’s appointment to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also suggested there might be more conflict with the Lib Dems as he is a climate change sceptic who has criticised the use of wind farms and supports “fracking”^[8].

It could be argued that the appointments are more important in terms of policy direction rather than in terms of prime Ministerial power. Cameron had previously embraced a form of “compassionate conservatism”. In order to reverse the run of three election defeats, he sought to modernise the party and move the party away from the image that Theresa May said had people thinking the Conservatives were the “nasty party”. Hence Cameron embraced environmentalism and urged voters to “vote blue, go green”. Similarly, he urged a more sympathetic approach to youth with the so-called “hug a hoodie” speech. Similarly, relations with the EU were hidden from view as part of the policy platform in 2010.

The appointment of Paterson at DEFRA and Grayling at Justice suggest the party may adopt a different approach at the next election.

This may be to over dramatise the impact of the new appointments. Given the restrictions upon Cameron and the survival of some in the cabinet, it could be argued that the reshuffle was not that significant. “This was not an especially bold or inspiring set of moves. No great coherence of mission emerged. No clear message about government priorities was sent.”^[9]

THE POWER OF THE PRIME MINISTER: “Events, dear boy, events”

The power of the Prime Minister is determined by a wide range of factors. Some of these factors relate to the formal powers that the Prime Minister enjoys by virtue of his position. The power of patronage is an obvious example as discussed earlier. Other factors though are less easy to define. In reply to a question to what could change the course of government, the then Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan is alleged to have remarked “Events, dear boy, events”. To a great degree the power of David Cameron seems to have been adversely affected by range of factors mostly beyond his control. These include:

· The continuation of the recession which has posed questions about the effectiveness of the government’s economic policies.

· The increased popularity of Boris Johnson with media speculation about a possible leadership challenge.

· The personal development of Ed Miliband as Labour leader.

· Splits in the Conservative party over the EU and House of Lords reform.

· Poor levels of support in the opinion polls which have shown increased support for both Labour and UKIP.

These developments have conspired to undermine the essentially intangible quality of “authority” which is a key determinant of Prime Ministerial power. Beckett argues “All Prime Ministers ultimately fray and weaken. But Cameron has done so fast.”^[10] and similarly Curtice states “People used to think Cameron was charismatic. But he is proving to be a kind of average PM. He’s not Thatcher, he’s not Blair. He is not a dominant figure. Nobody loves him.”^[11]

Example Essay Answer: Discuss the view that the power of appointment is the most important power of the Prime Minister

The P.M. used to be called “primus inter pares” with the emphasis on the “amongst equals”. The notion was that the UK had cabinet government with collective decision making. That view has given way to what Foley has described as the ‘British presidency’. A key factor which explains the ascendancy of the British P.M., is the power of patronage.

The power of patronage is also the most important power of the PM as it also allows the PM to effectively make policy. The fact that a PM can “make or break” a minister’s career by promotion / demotion within cabinet or hiring and firing from without, results in cabinets full of yes men and sycophants. Cabinet is reduced to being an “echo chamber” of the PM’s views rather than a forum for collective decision making. The recent demotions of Clarke and Greening and the promotion of Hunt, illustrate why the power of patronage is so important.

The power of patronage is also the most important power of the PM as it extends to cabinet committees. These can be regarded as the real powerhouse of cabinet and they are controlled by the PM.. Due to ministerial overload, individual ministers are only concerned with the work of their department. Cabinet committees, created and staffed by the PM, effectively create policy which goes through “full cabinet” on the nod. This power of appointment is a key part of the prime ministerial government thesis.

The power of patronage can also be regarded as the most important power of the P.M. as the power to call elections has now been lost with the introduction of fixed term elections.

Similarly, there are more constraints upon other powers such as the ability to control the cabinet agenda and write the minutes of the meeting. Important items such as the economy cannot be ignored and minutes must accurately reflect the sense of a meeting if embarrassing resignations like that of Heseltine over Westland and Cook and Short over the Iraq war are to be avoided.

The power of patronage however should not be exaggerated. There are a great many constraints which limit the P.M. when making appointments. The P.M. has to balance the ideological wings of his party which explains the inclusion of One Nation Tories such as Clarke. Similarly, senior politicians such as Hague and May effectively select themselves. With the Coalition Government the constraints are very evident with Clegg selecting ministers such as Alexander, cable, Laws and Davey. Other M.Ps are too old, inexperienced or simply unwilling to be a cabinet minister. Consequently this power as it stands is subject to many constraints and can therefore be considered not to be so important.

The power of the P.M. is said to stem from informal powers than from the formal powers such as that of appointment. The media focus upon the P.M., their own style and the attitude of cabinet determine the actual power of the P.M. . Domineering figures such as Thatcher and Blair were followed by weaker P.M.s with Major and Brown respectively. This would suggest that the power of patronage cannot be considered the most important power of the P.M. . All P.M.s possess this power but their actual authority over the cabinet varies between the holders of the office.

By the same token, “events dear boy, events” as MacMillan stated can cripple a P.M.. Major’ s power of patronage was not sufficient to keep his own party in line and the divisions over the Maastricht Treaty called him to resign in a desperate attempt to assert his leadership. Thatcher’s cabinet did not back her in 1990 even though she had appointed them all.

The power of patronage then is undoubtedly a significant power but it is one which cannot be exercised without limits. It should be remembered that the P.M. cannot run every government department. He needs to delegate and cabinet has a significant role to play both collectively and on an individual ministerial basis.