An outspoken cabinet is a danger which Liz Truss must learn to navigate 

A party at war with itself, mounting backbench rebellion, a difficult conference speech. The person and the policies may be very different, but Liz Truss’s difficulties already echo the late-era May government. The brief breakdown in collective cabinet responsibility – the constitutional convention that government ministers don’t dissent in public from government policy – was especially reminiscent. The Conservative Party conference in Birmingham first saw prominent former ministers such as Michael Gove and Grant Shapps come out against the 45p tax rate abolition – the u-turn followed on Monday – before current ministers, including Penny Mordaunt, went into battle over whether benefits would be uprated in line with inflation.  

And in the hothouse of the conference venue there were other signs of ministers veering from cabinet cohesion, with Suella Braverman accusing Conservative colleagues of a ‘coup’ in forcing the 45p tax u-turn and international trade secretary Kemi Badenoch then upbraiding the home secretary for her ‘inflammatory language’. Braverman was also ticked off by No10 for setting out ‘personal views’ about leaving the European Court of Human Rights. 

This chaotic atmosphere has prompted discussion about the significance of collective responsibility and the question of whether Truss has lost control of an increasingly confident cabinet.     

Collective responsibility depends on the authority of the prime minister 

Collective responsibility is the core around which government decision making occurs. Without it the prime minister might agree specific policies with only the ministers responsible for each decision. Others in cabinet would not get a say on policies beyond their departmental remit, such as the opportunity to express a view on benefits. 

Collective responsibility drives a lot of exchanges between departments to ensure there is agreement on policy. ‘Write arounds’, in Whitehall speak, add to the bureaucracy that frustrates many ministers, but they are also an important check to ensure one department’s plans are not completely at odds with what another is doing.  

It also includes the rule that cabinet discussions should be confidential. However, many of the current cabinet, as the current prime minister will know well, probably have experience of leaking cabinet discussions to favoured journalists. So how bad is the current situation? The timing played a huge part in contributing to the loss of discipline, with a 'budget’ that had denied ministers a chance to contribute followed by the peculiarly intense confines of conference where journalists and disgruntled politicians can hardly avoid one another. Back in London No.10 will have greater ability to control who does what media and to head off cabinet ministers worried about the direction of policy.  

Can Truss turn her ministers’ newfound independence to her advantage?  

It is rather novel to have ministers directly discussing policy disagreement, rather than ‘sources close to’ briefing out disagreements or ministers going round the tearooms of parliament behind the PM’s back. Truss, when she took office, sent out signals that she did not want a large and overly controlling No10. So this turn of events could be seen as a sign she has got what she wished for: strong cabinet ministers debating ideas vigorously could lead to better policy.  

But she must also handle the situation with care. A strong cabinet is one thing, but arguments frequently spilling out into public just adds to the sense of crisis that has already spooked the markets and will only increase the impression of a loss of authority. Seeing ministers, including some who had high profile leadership campaigns of their own, confident in their views and willing to debate them suggests this cabinet won’t lie down easily. It takes an intelligent chair in the cabinet room to hold them together and a listening No10 to ensure ministers can air their views outside the formal process. If Truss wants to keep ministers onside, she needs to make sure they are convinced of her project's overall value, as well as be prepared to make compromises in individual areas.  

The prime minister’s ultimate weapon is to sack a minister who refuses to toe the line. But forcing any resignation on policy is always a calculation about whether that minister’s influence, and political career, is better pursued inside or outside the tent. Looking on those ministers who didn’t come back – such as Gove or Shapps – some ministers may wonder if they also have better chance of making their case for the future of the party from outside. However, a government minister ultimately wields more power than even the most influential backbencher. At the same time, collective responsibility works both ways: it can also be a tool for a strong cabinet against a weak prime minister. 

Truss would also do well to remember that loosening collective responsibility is not the biggest threat to holding her government together. The greater problem is the level of backbench support (or lack of) for key policies, and this will get harder as spending cuts bite. On benefits uprating, given backbench concern about the issue, it is perhaps valuable those views are represented in her Cabinet – and that no more rebels are created on the backbenches. Collective responsibility is desirable for any prime minister. But just because it has been loosened does not mean it needs to become a major problem – unless, of course, the prime minister lets it become one.