cabinet government essential?

• Argument 1 Cabinet is formally responsible for major decisions -> The cabinet must approve key policy decisions, such as military action, budgets, and constitutional reform. -> Example: In 2024, Keir Starmer’s cabinet approved the decision to maintain the two-child benefit cap despite pressure from backbenchers and trade unions. -> This demonstrates that cabinet continues to function as the main formal decision-making body, enforcing collective responsibility, even when decisions are politically contentious. -> While the PM may lead, cabinet endorsement provides legitimacy and stability for policy decisions.
• Argument 2: Cabinet committees involve ministers in detailed policymaking -> Many real decisions happen in cabinet sub-committees, which spread workload and allow for specialised input.-> Example: The National Economic Council, chaired by Rachel Reeves, helped shape Labour’s industrial and regional investment policies in 2024–25. -> These forums enable ministers to coordinate across departments, showing cabinet government still works through delegated but collective structures. -> Cabinet may not always act as one unit, but its extended framework still distributes executive power meaningfully.
• Argument 3: Ministers remain accountable for departmental leadership -> Cabinet ministers still lead departments and answer to Parliament and the public for their policy areas. ->  Wes Streeting (Health Secretary) has led NHS reform efforts and frequently defends policy in media and in the House of Commons. -> This shows ministers are still key agents of policy implementation and political accountability, not passive followers of the PM. -> Cabinet works because its members carry operational and political responsibility—keeping the executive functionally decentralised.
• Counter argument 1: Prime Ministerial dominance sidelines full cabinet discussion -> Modern PMs often use personal advisers and inner circles to make decisions before they reach cabinet. ->  Starmer’s core team—especially Sue Gray and other policy aides—played a lead role in shaping housing and energy policy, reportedly with limited cabinet input. -> This undermines the ideal of collective government and shows that real power often lies outside the formal cabinet structure. -> Cabinet approval becomes a rubber stamp when the real decisions are made elsewhere.
• Counter argument 2: Media “presidentialisation” reduces collective profile -> Political communication is increasingly PM-centred, marginalising cabinet voices. -> In the 2024–25 period, Starmer and Reeves have dominated public messaging, with ministers playing secondary roles. -> This trend reflects presidential-style leadership, which shifts focus away from cabinet deliberation and toward individual leadership. -> If the public only hears from the PM and Chancellor, cabinet appears less central both in perception and power.
• Counter argument 3 : Disagreements are hidden, not debated openly Cabinet conflicts are often avoided or managed privately to project unity. ->  Tensions in 2025 over Labour’s planning and housing reforms were settled behind closed doors, not through open cabinet debate.

  -> This prevents genuine discussion and limits the cabinet’s function as a decision-making forum. -> Without open challenge or deliberation, cabinet becomes symbolic rather than central to executive action.