The House of Lords Constitution Committee have today published their 4th report of the 2009-10 session on 'The Cabinet Office and the Centre of Government' (HLP 30, ISBN 9780108459320) in which they suggest that power within the cabinet has become increasingly centralised to the Prime Minister and recommend that structures of accountability should be reformed to mirror that change. The Committee expresses support for the principles of collective responsibility but recognise that increasingly the Cabinet Office has become responsible for overseeing the delivery of government policy across departments. They stress that accountability mechanisms within the UK constitution are not set up to reflect this new reality with parliamentary and select committee scrutiny based on individual Ministers reporting to Parliament for activities within their departments. The Committee also considers the role of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and state that the responsibilities of the post are currently poorly defined. They recommend that the Government reassess the functions of the Minister for the Cabinet Office to ensure that the postholder's responsibilities accurately reflect the strategic role the Cabinet Office plays in delivering government policy. The report goes on to consider the approach taken to changes to the machinery of government and the change in the role and function of the Lord Chancellor which took place during Tony Blair's time as Prime Minister. The Committee states that the process of change involved ’wholly inadequate' consultation both within government and with the senior judiciary, and further states that there was "no justification for failure to consult on these important reforms". The Committee recommends that in future the Cabinet Office should play a formal role in investigating any machinery of government changes, particularly those with constitutional implications.

The first, definitive history of one of Britain's most important political institutions.

Agencies and policies instituted to streamline Ottawa's planning process instead concentrate power in the hands of the Prime Minister, more powerful in Canadian politics than the U.S. President in America. Riveting, startling, and indispensable reading.

Fully revised and updated, this new edition of Simon James’s comprehensible and accessible text provides an excellent insight into the work of the Prime Minister and Cabinet government. It draws on the wealth of new material that has become available in recent years to shed light on the mechanisms and processes of the Cabinet system in Britain, focusing on the post-1979 period. Its coverage includes: ministers and their departments; collective decision-making; the role of the Prime Minister; the strengths and weaknesses of the Cabinet system; and the future of the Cabinet system. Prime Minister and Cabinet Government will give both A-level students and undergraduates a clear understanding of the realities of this central aspect of British politics.

Why is cabinet government so resilient? Despite many obituaries, why does it continue to be the vehicle for governing across most parliamentary systems? Comparing Cabinets answers these questions by examining the structure and performance of cabinet government in five democracies: the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Australia. The book is organised around the dilemmas that cabinet governments must solve: how to develop the formal rules and practices that can bring predictability and consistency to decision making; how to balance good policy with good politics; how to ensure cohesion between the factions and parties that constitute the cabinet while allowing levels of self-interest to be advanced; how leaders can balance persuasion and command; and how to maintain support through accountability at the same time as being able to make unpopular decisions. All these dilemmas are continuing challenges to cabinet government, never solvable, and constantly reappearing in different forms. Comparing distinct parliamentary systems reveals how traditions, beliefs, and practices shape the answers. There is no single definition of cabinet government, but rather arenas and shared practices that provide some cohesion. Such a comparative approach allows greater insight into the process of cabinet government that cannot be achieved in the study of any single political system, and an understanding of the pressures on each system by appreciating the options that are elsewhere accepted as common beliefs.

Winner of the Daughters of the American Revolution’s Excellence in American History Book Award Winner of the Thomas J. Wilson Memorial Prize “Cogent, lucid, and concise...An indispensable guide to the creation of the cabinet...Groundbreaking...we can now have a much greater appreciation of this essential American institution, one of the major legacies of George Washington’s enlightened statecraft.” —Ron Chernow On November 26, 1791, George Washington convened his department secretaries—Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph—for the first cabinet meeting. Why did he wait two and a half years into his presidency to call his cabinet? Because the US Constitution did not create or provide for such a body. Faced with diplomatic crises, domestic insurrection, and constitutional challenges—and finding congressional help distinctly lacking—he decided he needed a group of advisors he could turn to for guidance. Authoritative and compulsively readable, The Cabinet reveals the far-reaching consequences of this decision. To Washington’s dismay, the tensions between Hamilton and Jefferson sharpened partisan divides, contributing to the development of the first party system. As he faced an increasingly recalcitrant Congress, he came to treat the cabinet as a private advisory body, greatly expanding the role of the executive branch and indelibly transforming the presidency. “Important and illuminating...an original angle of vision on the foundations and development of something we all take for granted.” —Jon Meacham “Fantastic...A compelling story.” —New Criterion “Helps us understand pivotal moments in the 1790s and the creation of an independent, effective executive.” —Wall Street Journal

The Capability Review programme was launched in 2005 to assess and compare systematically, for the first time, individual departments' organisational capabilities and ability to deliver their objectives. This National Audit Office report finds that the programme has led to evidence of greater capability in departments, but departments have yet to show that the programme has had an impact on outcomes in delivering public services. Action to tackle weaknesses in capability is now a prominent feature of board business and every department has a board member leading its review response. However, there is some uncertainty in departments about whether, or how, the programme will continue, risking a loss of momentum. The first-round reviews found common weaknesses in board leadership, determining the best way for delivering public services and staff skills. There is now evidence of improved capability, particularly in boards' visibility and cohesion. The report also finds: Capability Reviews are encouraging departments to work together while at the same time sharpening their focus on comparative performance; Capability Reviews focus on departments, but services are often implemented by external agencies which are not covered directly by reviews; and there is no benchmarking of departments' capabilities against external organisations, which might offer examples of best practice.