Prime Minister & Executive (Edexcel A Level Politics): Exam Questions

Prime Ministers have significant powers of patronage such as appointing ministers. They set the Cabinet agenda and are able to control the Cabinet - including deciding who chairs the most important Cabinet committees. If a Prime Minister is an electoral asset, they are fairly secure in office and, as long as they have the support of their closest allies in Cabinet and a large Commons majority, they face very few limits to their power.

However, Prime Ministers cannot appoint whoever they want to Cabinet. They must reflect the balance of party opinion and appoint the 'big beasts', as it's better to have them 'inside the tent rather than outside’. Theresa May had to retain a balance of ' Brexiteers' and 'Remainers’ in her Cabinet, reflecting Conservative Party divisions.

Prime Ministers can be brought down by their party. Tony Blair was arguably forced to resign. Margaret Thatcher resigned after losing the support of her Cabinet, when her ‘Poll Tax’ was rejected by the public. Prime Ministers with small majorities, or no majority, cannot take Parliament for granted. Theresa May avoided votes in Parliament which she expected to lose and the Commons prevented Cameron from going to war over Syria.

Article 1

There are 30,000 gay people in our country who, in the past six years, have been able to get married. That is real progress.

… As for homelessness, it is still 10% below the peak that we saw under Labour, but the key is building more homes. We have built 700,000 homes since I became Prime Minister … When I became Prime Minister, because of what had happened to the mortgage market, a first-time buyer often needed to have as much as £30,000 to put down a deposit. Because of the combination of Help to Buy and shared ownership, some people are able to get on the housing ladder now with a deposit of as little as £2,000.

… If we are going to talk about the economic record, let us get the facts straight. We have cut the deficit by two thirds. There are 2.5 million more people in work in our country. There are almost a million more businesses, and 2.9 million people in apprenticeships have been trained under this Government. When it comes to poverty, 300,000 fewer people are in relative poverty and 100,000 fewer children are in relative poverty.

Source: extract taken from Prime Minister's Questions (the Prime Minister), House of Commons, 13 July 2016, Hansard vol. 613. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

It is only right that after his six years as Prime Minister, we thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service. I have often disagreed with him, but some of his achievements I welcome and want to recognise today. One is helping to secure the release of Shaker Aamer from Guantanamo Bay; another is legislating to achieve equal marriage in our society. … Will he express some concern at the way that homelessness has risen in this country for the past six years and looks like it is going to continue to rise?

… Does the Prime Minister think that is because of record low house building or his Government's apparent belief that £450,000 is an affordable price for a starter home?

… [The Home Secretary] said, talking of the economy, "it is apparent to anybody who is in touch with the real world that people do not feel our economy works that way". Is she not right that too many people in too many places in Britain feel that the economy has been destroyed in their towns because the industries have gone, there are high levels of unemployment or under-employment, and a deep sense of malaise?

Source: extract taken from Prime Minister's Questions (the Leader of the Opposition), House of Commons, 13 July 2016, Hansard vol. 613. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

On 13 November 2023, the Rt Hon Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was appointed to the role of Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. His appointment marked the first time in over four decades that one of the Great Offices of State has been held by a Member of the Lords. In response to Lord Cameron's appointment, the Speaker wrote to the Procedure Committee … requesting that we explore options for enhanced scrutiny by the House of Commons of senior ministers in the House of Lords.

… Of the 131 Members who responded to our survey, a clear majority (88.5%) believed that Lords Secretaries of State should be directly accountable to the Commons. … [R]esponses were fairly even across departmental questions (87.6%), statements (86.7%) and urgent questions (84.8%).

… A considerable number of respondents to our survey and to our written evidence voiced objections to the principle of Members of the Lords being appointed to Secretary of State positions. … [W]e consider it appropriate to conduct scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords in the Chamber of the House of Commons and we recommend that such scrutiny should happen at the Bar of the House.

Source: extract taken from the House of Commons Procedure Committee, Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords, HC 338, 24 January 2024. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

The appointment of a Member of the House of Lords to the Cabinet is not unprecedented. Lord Frost, Baroness Morgan of Cotes, Lord Mandelson, Lord Adonis and Lord Carrington are examples of Peers in modern times who have served as Secretaries of State across governments of both parties. Indeed, Lord Mandelson was appointed as First Secretary of State—by definition, one of the most senior members of the government—and played a vitally important role in the last Labour administration, yet scrutiny arrangements in the House of Commons were unaltered.

… Lord Cameron's appointment reflects his particular strengths, knowledge and experience as well as his reputation on the international stage.

… [T]he use of the Bar of the House for routine scrutiny of non-Members is entirely untested. … The Commons does not have the power to summon a Peer and such a proposal could represent a significant trespass on the privileges of the Lords. … [T]he Foreign Secretary and [Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office] ministerial team have engaged with Parliament in a varied and enhanced way since his appointment.

Source: extract taken from the Government Response to the House of Commons Procedure Committee, HC 672, 17 April 2024. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

the idea was to have some big long-term aims, as well as managing the day-to-day stuff that any Government have to manage… The architecture that we set up at the beginning of this Parliament was to have a number of mission boards, each of which is chaired by the relevant Secretary of State, who is the mission lead and is in charge of delivering their mission. I serve on them all, alongside the Chairs.

… They are not a replacement for the traditional Cabinet Committees. We have Cabinet Committees, a Home and Economic Affairs Cabinet Committee, and so on, that deal with the day-to-day business of government. Their work carries on as normal.

… there was a decision taken to have these boards chaired by the mission leads to make sure they were accountable for delivering their mission. It would not be the right thing to do to just relieve the Departments of their responsibilities and locate it all in the Cabinet Office. We have an important co-ordinating role… but the actual delivery and the bulk of staff and so on are in the Departments themselves. We prefer to work in a collaborative way.

Source: extract taken from oral evidence given by the Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, The work of the Cabinet Office, HC 463, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 10 December 2024. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

How are the Government intending to have transparency and accountability on the mission boards? Will memberships of them be in the public domain and revised as and when they change? Will we know what the agendas are? Will we know what matrix they are using to measure success, progress, and failure?

… Who is the ringmaster? Is it you? Do you hold both the carrot and the stick in this increasingly siloed Whitehall that we all know about?… He has delegated to you, effectively, has he not?… But you cannot tell; you cannot instruct?… Is that power of instruction also delegated to you?

… I appreciate that some machinery of government reshuffles are just changing the brass plate on a door, but as you are a few months into government, do you see any merit at all in a fundamental review of how the machinery of Whitehall looks? Because I think there is an anxiety, if I can put it that way, of trying to retrofit a new way of delivering government and policy from an old machine.

Source: extract taken from oral evidence, questions put by Simon Hoare MP, Chair, The work of the Cabinet Office, HC 463, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 10 December 2024. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

This note relates to my responsibilities as Accounting Officer. These are set out in Managing Public Money and require Accounting Officers to consider the 'regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility' of public spending.

… If regularity as defined in Managing Public Money was the only consideration, I would advise against making payments from the Windrush Compensation Scheme until specific legislation is in place. However, it is perfectly legitimate for you to bring other considerations to bear, including the sound policy objectives behind the scheme and the importance of putting right wrongs that have been done. On that basis, you can legitimately decide that payments should be made. For this reason, I am seeking a formal written direction from you to implement the scheme and to make payments. I will of course follow this direction to the very best of my abilities.

… Should you issue a direction, I am required to copy all relevant papers to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Treasury Officer of Accounts promptly. We are also going to ensure that the chair of the Public Accounts Committee is informed of this matter.

Source: extract taken from the Letter from the Permanent Secretary to the Home Secretary (Sir Philip Rutnam, Permanent Secretary, Home Office), published on GOV.UK, 4 July 2019. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Article 2

When I became Home Secretary I made clear that it was an absolute priority to right the wrongs that had been experienced by the Windrush generation, which should never have happened. Since then I have built on the Commonwealth Citizens' Taskforce and established the Windrush Scheme, ensuring those affected can access the support they need to demonstrate their lawful status in the [United Kingdom]; initiated a full lessons learned review; and launched the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

… I understand that the Main Supply Estimates make specific reference to this Government's intent to compensate this group of people financially, but that a direction is necessary to make payments under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. I am clear that we cannot delay, and I judge this action to be in the best interests of both the government and affected members of the Windrush generation.

I recognise the rationale for requesting a formal Direction and how it aligns with your responsibilities as the Accounting Officer for the Home Office given the terms of the 1932 Concordat as referred to in Managing Public Money. This letter is to confirm that I am directing you to implement the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

Source: extract taken from the Letter from the Home Secretary to the Permanent Secretary (Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, Home Secretary), published on GOV.UK, 4 July 2019. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Article 1

the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch's power to legislate without the authority of Parliament… legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts… In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative… under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.

Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity… The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament… That is not good enough.

Source: extract taken from the adjournment debate 'Royal Prerogative' (speech of Mr John Garrett MP), House of Commons, 21 April 1993, Hansard vol. 223. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

The rights of Parliament to limit the prerogative are unrestricted. It is a one-way street… Such prerogative powers are residual and may be restricted or abolished by statute, and even where statute overlaps prerogative powers, the prerogative power falls into abeyance and the Crown from then on uses the statutory rather than the prerogative power… it is inconceivable that any Government would declare war without being confident that they would command parliamentary support. The money needed to sustain the war could be voted only by Parliament.

Although the issue of passports is a discretionary power under the royal prerogative, it is as constrained as any statutory power might be, and the exercise of the discretion may be reviewed by the courts… The exercise of prerogative powers is subject to judicial review… In any parliamentary democracy, the Government must not be above the law and are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is open to Parliament to restrict the prerogative powers exercised by Ministers further, if it wishes to do so, by introducing new Acts of Parliament.

Source: extract taken from the adjournment debate 'Royal Prerogative' (reply of Mr Charles Wardle MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department), House of Commons, 21 April 1993, Hansard vol. 223. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.