The idea that the Prime Minister acting ‘Presidential’ has marginalised Cabinet Government is in my eyes a valid one. In coming to this conclusion it is necessary to understand exactly what Cabinet Government is and so, determine if in fact it is being trivialised and marginalised by the PM. The Cabinet is a collection of elected ministers, chosen by the PM to aid in making important decisions for the PM. The most important principle for the Cabinet as stated in the Ministerial code is ‘The principle of collective responsibility, save where it is explicitly set aside ’. Prime Ministers chair these meetings and are meant to be the ‘first among equals’, however I don’t believe this is the case for a number of reasons. Firstly because the PM acts as the ‘first without equal’ in a dominant fashion, this is aided by the very personal Bush/Blair relationship making way for the concept of a ‘celebrity politician’. Secondly Blair and Thatcher tended to bypass Cabinet and make use of their special advisers contributing to marginalisation, and thirdly the shortening in length of the Cabinet meetings adds to it being sidelined.
My reasons for why Cabinet Government has been marginalised begin with the Cabinet meetings themselves; this being the length of them, and the infrequence of them. This isn’t the most fundamental factor involved in my argument yet it is still important in showing marginalisation. Tony Blair reduced Cabinet meetings down to 30 minutes and only had one every week. This sidelining of the Cabinet is emphasised by Michael Foley when he contrasted the Cabinet meetings of John Major and Tony Blair into the categories of seminar and lecture (respectively) . Brown promised a ‘new style of government’ and to empower the Cabinet more, claiming he didn’t want a ‘sofa government’ like Blair, but this wasn’t the case as he only changed the day of the meetings and immerged as a bully during them. Adding to this, Margret Thatcher said about Cabinet meetings ‘I...