The Core Executive Structure

Think of the core executive as the engine room of British politics - it's where the big decisions happen. At the centre, you've got the Prime Minister surrounded by about 20-25 senior appointments who make up the Cabinet. These aren't just random politicians; they're carefully chosen department heads who collectively run the country.

The executive's main job is pretty straightforward: they control law enforcement, respond to crises, develop government policy, and manage the nation's finances. What makes them powerful is their ability to draft legislation and then actually get it passed through Parliament.

Cabinet powers are extensive - they direct foreign policy, determine how the government responds to emergencies, control military action, and set Parliament's agenda. They also wield Royal Prerogative powers, which are essentially leftover powers from when monarchs ruled directly.

Key Point: The executive doesn't just make policy - they control the entire legislative process from start to finish.

Cabinet Responsibility: The Unwritten Rules

Collective responsibility is basically the rule that all Cabinet ministers must publicly support government decisions, even if they disagree privately. It's like being part of a team - you argue behind closed doors, but once a decision's made, everyone backs it publicly.

This system has clear advantages: it creates solidarity, speeds up policy decisions, and lets Parliament hold the entire Cabinet accountable as one unit. When ministers do disagree fundamentally with policy, they resign - like Robin Cook over Iraq in 2003, or Iain Duncan Smith over benefit reforms in 2016.

Individual ministerial responsibility means ministers take the blame when their departments mess up. In theory, they should resign over mistakes or personal misconduct. Michael Fallon stepped down over sexual harassment allegations in 2017, and Chris Huhne resigned over a speeding scandal.

However, the system's getting weaker. Ministers like Peter Mandelson and Gavin Williamson have returned to government after resigning, and PMs increasingly use ministers as scapegoats whilst keeping their favourites in post.

Reality Check: These responsibility principles still matter for maintaining standards, but they're increasingly flexible depending on political circumstances.

Prime Ministerial Power and Its Limits

The PM might seem all-powerful, but they face serious constraints that can make or break their leadership. Sure, they're head of government, set the Cabinet agenda, and use patronage powers to appoint allies. Blair dominated over Iraq, and Johnson won big with 'Get Brexit Done' in 2019.

But here's the reality: PMs can be overruled by Cabinet (Thatcher's poll tax), lose parliamentary majorities (May after 2017), or become powerless due to events beyond their control (Brown during the 2008 crash). Personal qualities matter hugely - compare Blair's media savvy with May's struggles over Brexit.

Parliamentary defeats are rare but devastating when they happen. The last successful no-confidence vote was in 1979, but even the threat can be crippling. May faced constant defeats in the Lords over Brexit, whilst Sunak has already suffered over 150 defeats on legislation.

Select Committees like the Liaison Committee can publicly grill PMs, and collective responsibility means they can't just ignore Cabinet opposition. Political circumstances ultimately determine whether a PM dominates $Blair 1997-2007$ or struggles $May 2017-2019$.

Bottom Line: The PM's power fluctuates dramatically based on their parliamentary majority, party loyalty, and ability to handle crises.

How Ministers Get Their Jobs

Choosing Cabinet ministers isn't just about picking the best person for the job - it's political chess. PMs consider personal qualities like loyalty, media skills, and ability to handle parliamentary pressure. They also look at ideological balance and potential to manage massive government departments.

Party unity often trumps competence. May deliberately chose both Leave and Remain politicians for prominent roles after Brexit - Johnson became Foreign Secretary despite supporting Leave, whilst Hammond (Remain) became Chancellor. This wasn't about their qualifications; it was about keeping both wings of the Conservative Party happy.

Sometimes PMs have no choice at all. In the 2010 coalition government, Cameron had to give Clegg the Deputy PM role and hand 5 out of 22 Cabinet seats to the Liberal Democrats. It was part of the coalition agreement, not Cameron's preference.

Including rivals is smart politics - better to have potential troublemakers bound by collective responsibility inside Cabinet than causing problems from the backbenches. Blair included Gordon Brown partly because of his economic expertise, but also to keep him onside.

Political Reality: Cabinet appointments are more about managing party politics and public perception than just finding the most qualified candidates.

Is the PM Becoming Presidential?

The debate about whether PMs are becoming presidential is more relevant than ever. Blair's 'sofa government' style, use of special advisors like Alastair Campbell, and dominance over Cabinet certainly felt presidential. Johnson's social media presence and personal branding push this even further.

However, key differences remain. Even powerful PMs like Blair couldn't override Cabinet completely - Brown prevented him from joining the Euro. Coalition governments severely restrict PM power, and parliamentary defeats still matter. Cameron couldn't bomb Syria in 2013 without Commons approval.

The relationship between PM and Cabinet depends entirely on political circumstances. Blair dominated when he had huge majorities and clear vision, but May struggled with a divided party and no parliamentary majority. Strong PMs can use patronage and agenda control effectively, whilst weak ones become prisoners of their own Cabinet.

British voters still don't directly elect the PM - they vote for parties and local MPs. This isn't like the US where the president embodies the entire executive branch. Even when Sunak's personal polling is dire, people still consider local factors and party policies.

Verdict: PMs have more presidential characteristics than before, but constitutional constraints and political realities still make them very different from actual presidents.