Are ministers irrelevant?

• argument 1: Civil Servants and Advisers Hold More Power

  Ministers often rely heavily on unelected civil servants and special advisers for policy development -> Example: In 2023, Sue Gray’s departure from the civil service to become Labour’s chief of staff revealed how central advisors can be more influential than ministers.-> Suggests ministers can become figureheads, lacking real policy control.
• Counter argument 1: Ministers Are Accountable to Parliament and the Public -> Ministers are directly answerable to select committees and must defend policies in the Commons -> Example: Gillian Keegan (Education Secretary) in 2024 was grilled by the Education Select Committee over school building safety, leading to additional funding.-> Shows ministers play a central, public-facing role in accountability.
• argument 2: Frequent Reshuffles Undermine Long-Term Impact -> Ministers are often reshuffled before they can implement meaningful change. -> Example: In 2023, Rishi Sunak’s reshuffle saw five Cabinet changes in one day, disrupting continuity in departments like Business and Education. -> Undermines ministerial relevance due to short tenures and lack of policy consistency.
• Counter argument 3: They Resign on Principle or Amid Scandal -> Ministerial resignations show they still bear responsibility for departmental failures due to the CMR and IMR conventions. -> Example: Robert Jenrick resigned in 2023 over disagreements on migration policy, claiming the government wasn’t doing enough to deter illegal arrivals. -> Proves ministers still matter politically and symbolically -> being a minister during the scandal -> damage credibility -> lead to possible byelections or council elections -> party can be argued to be weak
• Argument 3 : PM and No. 10 Dominate Decision-Making -> Prime Ministers centralise power, especially over major policy areas. Example: Keir Starmer’s 2024–25 government saw key decisions on infrastructure and NHS reform shaped by Starmer’s inner team, not departmental ministers. -> Indicates that core executive control overshadows ministerial autonomy. -> presidential capabilities like sofa cabinets -> possibly some ministers are relevant but are all ministers relevant...
• Counter argument 2: They Drive Departmental Policy and Reform -> Ministers lead legislative initiatives and strategic policy shifts.-> Example: Wes Streeting (Health Secretary, 2025) led Labour’s NHS reform plans, including the creation of new diagnostics hubs and mental health services. -> Demonstrates active ministerial leadership in public service delivery -> they are relevant as they keep the government running functionally -> yes the PM can act presidential but truly is not capable of running multiple departments by himself