Who is the UK's Commander-in-chief?

No idea. I wish William Hague had the power to order troops around; he's just so evil and cold, he'd be wonderful at it.

Can't the Queen just dismiss someone at will then? Where is this fictional power she enslaves us over?

I mean de facto Commander-in-chief, not nominal, the Queen. Cameron himself isn't, but is it the Cabinet for some decisions and the War Cabinet for some operation decisions, what equipment to use, what strategy to take etc. For example if Cameron wanted to replace an incompetant general in Afghanistan and the rest of the government disagreed, he could do absolutely nothing, it'd be a decision for the War Cabinet collectively to make.

Whereas President Obama can dismiss any commander for any reason or for none, i.e. General McChrystal being sacked and replaced with General Petraeus, although he needed the "advice and consent" of the Senate. When the Argentinian ship Belgrano was sank in the Falklands War, Thatcher gave the order to sink but only after the Cabinet had debated and agreed upon it, so it wasn't just her decision, if they had disagreed she'd be powerless.

So is it right to assume that we don't have a single Commander-in-chief like the United States, but a collectively one, sounds very politburo-ish, comprised of the full or war Cabinet?

The cabinet is not a body with any actual legal authority. The authority for military decisions lies with the Queen-on-the-advice-of-the-PM (so, in reality, the PM) and some powers are held by the Secretary of State for Defence. The reason that cabinet decisions are political, not legal or military. Even Presidents have to consider political expediency when giving orders.

The difference is, of course, that a Prime Minister does not have the security of tenure that a President has. One could potentially be effectively removed from office during the course of a war.

The queen is also advised by civil servants and will seek the advice of her foreign minister and the ministry of defence. She will know of a disagreement and elect not to act until it is resolved. The PM doesn't have final authority through her.

The cabinet is not a body with any actual legal authority. The authority for military decisions lies with the Queen-on-the-advice-of-the-PM (so, in reality, the PM) and some powers are held by the Secretary of State for Defence. The reason that cabinet decisions are political, not legal or military. Even Presidents have to consider political expediency when giving orders.

The difference is, of course, that a Prime Minister does not have the security of tenure that a President has. One could potentially be effectively removed from office during the course of a war.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. You question the Cabinet's legality, when the PM itself has no legal authority, even less so than the Cabinet, especially when we are considering precedents. The PM would need support of Cabinet for a military decision. When the Queent takes advice from him, she's taking advice from her government, not an individual.

In the Iraq War Blair needed the support of the whole Cabinet before any military action could be taken, most of the Cabinet have subsequently said that they thought the way he did it was wrong as if they'd rejected war not only would we have not been able to take part but it would have brought the government down, in effect they had little room for maneuver. When one of our subs caught sight of the Belgrano in the South Atlantic in the Falklands War, it was only when the Cabinet as a whole agreed to sink it that Thatcher gave the order.

President Obama would not have to seek authority from his Cabinet, as Blair did, the decision would be his and his alone. Strategic and tactical decisions are his too, he wouldn't have to consult anyone unlike the British case. A clear distinction from the British Prime Minister.

There is no specific provision for the Queen taking advice from the government as a body: indeed, as an inherent part of the government it's rather difficult to square the distinctions. When the Queen exercises a prerogative power, it is always taken on the "advice of the Prime Minister" or some other specified individual. The Prime Minister is the Sovereign's chief adviser and has the overarching power to give advice on any subject.

Whilst cabinet does exist, its decisions are implemented by individual ministers. That a cabinet decision is made does not undermine the minister's authority to make decisions - but obviously a minister who ignored a cabinet decision would likely find himself sacked by the Prime Minister within a matter of minutes.

Let's not forget that the PM - via the Sovereign - holds complete responsibility for who is in the cabinet (and, in wartime, a small 'war cabinet' is usually formed), how it operates, what is interpreted as the collective will and the tenure of Ministers. In reality, cabinet has no control over the PM: that is Parliament's job; cabinet reflects the political circumstances of that.



I think we have to make a distinction here between formal authority and political reality. In reality, if at all possible, a Prime Minister is obliged by tradition and respect for the position of his government vis-a-vis Parliament to bring any significant decisions before cabinet. These are, ultimately, political judgements rather than formal, prescriptive parts of the constitution.

You might argue that the division here is somewhat artificial: in the normal scope of things, it is. It's rather reminiscent of the debate on legal positivism in that regard.



Obama indeed doesn't have the political issues to grapple with that a Prime Minister does, but he certainly does have political matters to consider. Which is why he'd take advice

You're not really giving any evidence, although I agree it is difficult with the British constitution, but events or precedents would be useful, otherwise it's your word against mine.

What I'm arguing is that the Queen as Head of State ultimately has the power to declare war, command the military, pardon, dissolve parliament, appoint/dismiss ministers and civil servants etc. it is her not the Prime Minister who has those powers, the Prime Minister represents the government.

All the evidence points to Cabinet taking the major decisions, explicitly or implicitly. For example the Prime Minister can't dismiss his whole Cabinet, it's never been done, something a President could.

If Brown had gone to the Queen in 09 and said he wanted to dismiss his whole Cabinet she would never have agreed, he didn't have their support, I don't even think the whole Cabinet could be replaced.

The same if he asked her to dissolve Parliament, if she knew they didn't support him, she wouldn't have to agree to it.

Yes decisions are implemented by individual ministers but its assumed those decisions are being taken not by them individually but the Cabinet as a whole. Just off the top of my head, Hague and Milliband both as Foreign Secretaries have both order military operations using the RP. Straw pardoned using the RP. Milliband revoked an honour using the RP. But each time they did this the whole Cabinet was assumed to have the support of them, although of course they didn't have a vote. We have Cabinet government, look back over the last 300 years, for the majority of that time the PM was merely a nominal figure, yet the RP has been exercised by different ministers throughout.

Ain't it the truth



In the strictest of all possible strict terms, you are correct. But in reality, L I B is correct, as there is no possibility of the Queen exercising these powers independently of the PM. It is recognised that the PM is the one with the right to use those powers on the Queen's behalf.



That's not because there is a legal barrier on the PM doing this, however. The Cabinet does not exist as a legal entity. Rather, a PM is prevented from doing this because of the political ramifications of taking such a drastic action.



Actually, the Queen wouldn't have been consulted. The Queen doesn't control appointments to the Cabinets, she only ratifies when the PM wants to do. If Brown had decided he wanted to dismiss his Cabinet, the Queen would not have stopped him. However Brown would have been insane to do this, because he would have had to explain why he did this to Parliament.



You are partly correct here. The Queen would have been able to refuse a dissolution of Parliament in certain circumstances, but in the example you give, it would have been because of the standing of the individual members of the Cabinet within the PM's political party that mattered most.

If the Cabinet and the PM were split over whether there should be a dissolution there would be a reason why, and it would be that reason which would define the Queen's response. For example, if the split was because the PM was facing a leadership challenge, then the Queen would be duty bound to refuse the Dissolution.




The reason for this is because of the principle of collective responsibility.

A Cabinet which is divided risks the loss of confidence of Parliament, and it is expected of anyone who joins the government that they will follow the Government line on all issues. It is not because the Cabinet exists that members of the Cabinet have their powers; in effect the Cabinet is just a label for an informal sub-committee of the Privy Council.

Collective responsibility means that any minister asked by Parliament 'why did you do this?' can reply 'when I asked my colleagues in Cabinet, they all agreed with me'. It's a means of minimising personal personal political damage by spreading the damage among a body of people.

There is no formal requirement for it, but it is prudent because it is a means of arse-covering, essentially.

Obviously I agree with some of that, but in general, no, I'm sure the British system of government has always been Cabinet government and not domination by one figure. After all parties are elected to form governments, not individuals. I understand however that ultimately, any government is accountable and can be brought down by Parliament. Arguing the legality of Cabinet is pointless because there is even less reference to the post and powers of the Prime Minister, after all, first among equals. I don't think a Prime Minister can sack his whole Cabinet or government either, I just think its unconstitutional, it has never been done and I don't think it has never been done because of purely political ramifications.

I think you misunderstand me. Cabinet government has always been the norm in this country since the Middle Ages at least, but that doesn't mean that the Cabinet has a legal existence - it doesn't. It exists as a label to describe a collective body of government ministers, but in theory the ministers could alternatively run their departments without consultation with the others. They don't do this because it's harmful to administration.

A PM can sack his Cabinet, but he won't because to do so would be actively harmful to his credibility - it is NOT unconstitutional, however. He would not be prosecuted or disciplined for doing the deed - but he would be politically censured for doing it by his allies and enemies in parliament.