UK Government

Prime Minister. Appointment (see Rodney Brazier): Prime Ministers are appointed by the monarch under the royal prerogative. However, the monarch is bound by constitutional convention to appoint the MP (or soon-to-be MP) who appears to be in the best position to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Other titles: The Prime Minister is also First Lord of the Treasury (continually since 1902, but often before then too), Minister for the Civil Service (since 1968) and Minister for the Union (since 2019). Functions (see Peter Hennessy and the Cabinet Manual): The Prime Minister’s functions include: Managing the UK Government’s relationship with the monarch, opposition and devolved governments; Requesting a dissolution of the UK Parliament (thus, a general election); Hiring and firing ministers, adjudicating the Ministerial Code and organising the UK Government; Making top appointments within the UK Government and beyond; Advising the monarch to make appointments to the House of Lords; Chairing the Cabinet, setting up Cabinet Committees and being their final arbiter; Ultimate responsibility for the UK Government’s legislative agenda and its use of time in the UK Parliament; Being scrutinised at Prime Minister’s Questions and by the Liaison Committee; Intervening in essentially any area of UK Government business, particularly areas of interest and the budget; Responsibility for national security; Deploying British Armed Forces and authorising the use of nuclear weapons; Representing the UK on the international stage. Incumbents since 1945: Rishi Sunak (Conservative) (2022–); Liz Truss (Conservative) (2022–2022); Boris Johnson (Conservative) (2019–2022); Theresa May (Conservative) (2016–2019); David Cameron (Conservative) (2010–2016); Gordon Brown (Labour) (2007–2010); Tony Blair (Labour) (1997–2007); John Major (Conservative) (1990–1997); Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) (1979–1990); James Callaghan (Labour) (1976–1979); Harold Wilson (Labour) (1974–1976); Edward Heath (Conservative) (1970–1974); Harold Wilson (Labour) (1964–1970); Alec Douglas-Home (Conservative) (1963–1964); Harold Macmillan (Conservative) (1957–1963): Anthony Eden (Conservative) (1955–1957); Winston Churchill (Conservative) (1951–1955); Clement Attlee (Labour) (1945–1951).
Thinkers on the premiership. Primus inter pares: The use of “primus inter pares” to describe the Prime Minister is often attributed to Bagehot, but JS Dugdale says that Morley first used the phrase and that even then it is important to read it in its full context. Walter Bagehot (1867): “a Prime Minister is, of course, a considerable power, though it is exercised under close and imperative restrictions — though it is far less than it seems when stated in theory, or looked at from a distance. The cabinet, in a word, is a board of control chosen by the legislature, out of persons whom it trusts and knows, to rule the nation”. John Morley (1890): “the head of the Cabinet is primus inter pares, and occupies a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional and peculiar authority”. Growth in power? Various thinkers have made claims of increasing prime ministerial power. Sidney Lowe (1904): “[f]or the greater part of the past half century… [t]he office of Premier has become more than ever like that of an elective President, since it has been held by a succession of able statesmen, who were unquestionably the real, as well as the nominal, chiefs of their parties, and generally stood far above all rivalry or competition on their own side”. Harold J Laski (1951): “if we compare 1850 with 1950, or even 1900 with 1950, the centralisation of power in the Prime Minister’s hands has proceeded at a swift pace, and… its judicious use is mainly dependent upon his own self-restraint”. RHS Crossman (1963): “the post-war epoch has seen the final transformation of Cabinet Government into Prime Ministerial Government”. Michael Foley (1993): “the British prime minister has to all intents and purposes turned, not into a British version of an American president, but into an authentically British president” and (2000): “[t]he term ‘presidential’ conjures up a profusion of associations relating to executive centralisation and personal power [and this particularly applies to Tony Blair]”. Refuting growth: Jones, in particular, has refuted claims of increasing prime ministerial power. GW Jones (1964): “[h]is office has great potentialities, but the use made of them depends on many variables, the personality, temperament, and ability of the Prime Minister, what he wants to achieve and the methods he uses. It depends also on his colleagues, their personalities, temperaments and abilities, what they want to do and their methods”. Andrew Blick and George Jones (2010): “[w]hen consideration is given to such theses as those of a ‘presidential’ or an increasingly dominant No.10 from 1997 onwards, it is important to bear in mind earlier similar proclamations”. Alternative ideas: Other thinkers have other ideas about the balance of power in the UK Government. Martin J Smith (1999): “[t]he core executive is at the heart of British government… [A]ll actors within the core executive have resources, with no actor, or institution, having a monopoly”. Simon James (2020): “[t]oday the Cabinet is essentially a discursive body; decisions are taken variously in committee, in ad hoc groups and bilaterally, and the modes of decision-taking vary according to the area of policy, the Prime Minister’s preferred business methods and the circumstances of the moment. But the core of the decision-making system is, and has been since the late 1970s, its battery of ministerial committees”. Mark Garnett (2021): “in terms of an ability to direct or even inspire desired practical effects [as opposed to prominence], the Prime Minister is no more powerful than his or her ministers”.
Appointing ministers. The power to advise the monarch to appoint ministers is one of the most important powers that a Prime Minister has and reshuffles are always exciting; below are seven factors which affect a Prime Minister’s selection of ministers: Allyship: Rishi Sunak and his Deputy Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden, are seen as close friends; Collective ministerial responsibility: Initially, Suella Braverman’s re-appointment was seen as an attempt to prevent her from challenging Rishi Sunak; Diversity of opinion: Rishi Sunak appointed Liz Truss-ally Thérèse Coffey to his Cabinet when he became Prime Minister; Effectiveness: Michael Gove, who has served in the Cabinets of four Prime Ministers, is seen as a highly effective minister; Life experience: Veterans’ Affairs Minister Johnny Mercer is a veteran himself and campaigned for veterans affairs on the backbenches; Popularity: Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt’s stabilising influence since the ‘mini budget’ makes him difficult to fire; Social diversity: Rishi Sunak has come under criticism for having too few women in his Cabinet, but it would be unthinkable to have an entirely male top team today.
Individual ministerial responsibility. What is it (see Rodney Brazier and Philip Norton)? Individual ministerial responsibility essentially means that ministers are responsible for their government department, including general conduct, acts done or left undone and policy. The different ways in which this term has been defined raises some questions: is personal conduct included within it; does it include a duty to determine policy; is this responsibility to the UK Parliament? What does it mean? Philip Norton says that, as far as a constitutional convention is concerned, individual ministerial responsibility only means answering for the government department, like in the UK Parliament, and that any other consequences (like resignation) “come, at best, under the rubric of practice”. When has it been followed? It is easy when listing examples to highlight the well-known over the representative; Question Time/Oral Questions take place almost every day, so it is very difficult to argue that individual ministerial responsibility is completely dead, but still: In 2018, Home Secretary Amber Rudd resigned after “inadvertently” misleading MPs over whether the Home Office had targets for deporting people, at the height of the ‘Windrush scandal’; In 2020, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson did apologise in the House of Commons over a controversy about GCSE grades, but it was two senior civil servants who ended up resigning; In 2021 and 2022, Prime Minister Boris Johnson apologised multiple times in the House of Commons, but did not resign, for both what he and others in 10 Downing Street did during ‘partygate’.
Collective ministerial responsibility. What is it? “Ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached” — this is collective ministerial responsibility. Arguably, this definition from the Ministerial Code does not just consist of one rule but two: one is that there should be a united front, but the other is that ministers should have somewhat of an input before decisions are reached. What does it mean? Collective ministerial responsibility can be formally relaxed by the Prime Minister, like in 1974 and 2016 regarding EEC/EU membership, and it can also be informally relaxed when Prime Ministers do not enforce it; James Callaghan said: “I certainly think that the doctrine should apply, except in cases where I announce that it does not”. When has it been followed? It is easy when listing examples to highlight the well-known over the representative, but still, here are some examples of collective ministerial responsibility in practice: The Institute for Government says that 21 ministers resigned over Theresa May’s “European policy”, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. But, in 2019, Conservative Chief Whip Julian Smith said that May’s Cabinet was the “worst example of ill-discipline in cabinet in British political history”: ministers did not resign after voting against the UK Government in the House of Commons and ‘leaking’ was seen as epidemic, culminating in a ‘leak’ from the National Security Council; In 2022, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak resigned over what he saw as differing views on the economy to Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Royal prerogative. What is it? The royal prerogative is essentially the left-over powers that the monarch has from the time of absolute monarchy. Now, by constitutional convention, almost every power is exercised by or on the advice of the UK Government. There is no complete list of royal prerogative powers, but they include: appointing the Prime Minister (by the monarch), deploying the armed forces (by the UK Government) and agreeing treaties (by the UK Government). How is it scrutinised? The UK Parliament generally has no formal separate way to scrutinise the exercise of the royal prerogative. However, constitutional conventions (as arguably in the case of the armed forces) or Acts of Parliament (as in the case of treaties: the Constitutional, Reform and Governance Act 2010) can impose parliamentary scrutiny. The courts can also scrutinise the royal prerogative through judicial review, but only on legal, not political, grounds.
Secondary legislation. What is it? Secondary legislation is law made, usually by the UK Government, under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Each year, over 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation become law, ranging from the minor to the very important. How is it scrutinised? In the UK Parliament: Affirmative: Secondary legislation scrutinised by the affirmative procedure has to be approved (but cannot be amended and a debate is not required) by the UK Parliament before it takes effect (except in an emergency, when this can be delayed) — approval was last withheld by the House of Commons in 1978 and the House of Lords in 2015; Negative: Secondary legislation scrutinised by the negative procedure can be rejected by the UK Parliament if it chooses — this last happened in the House of Commons in 1979 and the House of Lords in 2000. Parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation is light — in fact, the best scrutiny often comes from the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, despite having no power to accept, amend or reject secondary legislation. The courts can also scrutinise secondary legislation through judicial review, but only on legal, not political, grounds. Important examples. Important pieces of secondary legislation include: Tax credits: The Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 made under the Tax Credits Act 2002 would have essentially cut Working Tax Credits, but this draft secondary legislation was rejected by the House of Lords (if you had asked the UK Government’s view, in spite of the fact that they related to a financial matter and had been approved by MPs); COVID-19: In 2020 and 2021, well over 100 pieces of secondary legislation were made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (as amended), some imposing the most stringent restrictions on freedoms in recent history, with parliamentary scrutiny of these laws often delayed; Protest: The Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023 made under the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended) is draft secondary legislation which, if approved by the UK Parliament, will amend the Public Order Act 1986 to essentially lower the threshold at which the police can impose limits on protests, despite this being rejected by the House of Lords when it was included in the Public Order Bill.