These television broadcasts have not only influenced presidential debates, but have set new standards for them. Initially, Presidents have been seen as an icon of respect and pride, however over the years these features given to a future leader have diminished by the way they are being seen on television. When presidents happen to be on television the people are expecting a poised man to show up and speak eloquently and coherent. So then when we have a person whom we look up to make a fool out of themselves, it is quite a shock and brings the presidency down with them. For instance, on April 20, 1992, President Bill Clinton was asked by the MTV generation to discuss his underwear, which turned out to be briefs, on a nationwide broadcast (Hart and Triece).
Thus the machinery of the central government has become increasingly similar to that of the White House machinery. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador in Washington DC, has claimed that Jack Straw and the Foreign Office were sidelined as most communication was directly between Downing Street and the Washington embassy. However, whether or not the Prime Minister has a Presidential style leadership depends highly on his (or her) majority within Parliament. Margaret Thatcher enjoyed huge majorities of over 100 following the 1983 and 1987 elections, and because of this she was able to enjoy huge amounts of power in
People went from shocked hearing about the sex scandal to being extra supportive of the same president overnight. The president was caught in a sex scandal almost losing his chance of reelection which was his diversionary incentive. He started a war, international crisis, with Albania in order to divert the public attention as well as attain their support. Democracy, the ideology that capitalist nations have been vigorously luxuriating, meant citizens (individuals) enjoy equal partaking in the decision making. Such form of government protects the rights of individuals and enables them to exercise political freedom.
Blair was also able to control ministers by use of his "sofa government"- informal decision making by Blair and a select group of non-elected advisors. However, the power the Prime Minister has over Cabinet relies a lot on the Prime Minister being popular. Thatcher, for example, started off as popular, ruling her Cabinet in the way she wanted, but she lost a large amount of public and ministerial support by the end of her role as Prime Minister, and her Cabinet began to turn from her. Another limitation of the Prime Minister is the ability of Cabinet members to carry out a motion of no confidence, in which they will determine whether or not the Prime Minister remains fit to carry out their duties. If the motion is carried then the Prime Minister will be forced
Another example of a PM who did not dominate the political system is Major. The Tory party and cabinet were split and hence Major lacked support; therefore he encouraged discussions within cabinet meetings. However, in hindsight it should be noted that Major and Callaghan both lacked a majority in the House of Commons and had to seize all the support they could. Another way a PM dominated the political system is by running it as a PM government. This is a govt.
The media has had a great impact on the recent presidential elections. It is the most important and influential factor when determining who to vote for. The media has both positive and negative effects, it can make somebody look like a heroic person who is ready to lead the country no matter what happens, and it can also someone look like a babbling moron who has no clue about anything. The two main types of media that affect the election are paid advertising and news reporting. Paid advertising is when a presidential candidate pays to broadcast his message to the American people.
Prime ministers chair cabinet meetings, this enables prime ministers to harness the decision – making authority of the cabinet to their own ends. Therefore, British prime ministers are as powerful as it is claimed because the prime minister can effectively determine the role and significance of cabinet. For example the “westland affair” in 1986, proved a political scandal for the British conservative government. Thatcher was not willing to compromise, resulting in Heseltine’s resignation, proving the ability of the prime minister to control cabinet. Furthermore, party leadership; it sets the prime minister apart from all other ministers and gives him or her leverage across the wider governmental system.
All the debates offer is an opportunity to see a President laid bare without the constant media spin and give the American public an opportunity to decide what to focus on. Despite this, however, the tradition of debating between presidential candidates has many fans for a number of reasons. One key reason is that Americans are not offered the opportunity to see regular presidential scrutiny unlike the UK where ministers are grilled weekly, therefore this gives the electorate a prime opportunity to see how a candidate deals with pressure and whether they can debate effectively. These debates also offer a rare chance to see true political straight talking – an opportunity so often denied to so many Americans, one common host chooses the topics of the debate in private and allots time rigidly, not allowing the audience to make any noise in reaction to what the candidates say. With methods like these ranting is kept to a minimum and destroys any scent of
Cameron in turn, should expect to enjoy less power as he had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, in order to achieve a majority. This would mean that the likes of the Prime Minister would in many situations have to be compromised. Another essential factor which would influence the degree of Prime Ministerial power is the unity of the ruling party or coalition. In Blair’s situation, he enjoyed an exceptionally united group, therefore being able to enjoy several years of complete domination. When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity.
How Queen Elizabeth Came To Power Queen Elizabeth I will go down as one of the greatest rulers of England. But her story of how she came to power is even better. Henry VIII, Mary Tudor, and multiple religious changes were all factors that lead to Elizabeth I coming to power. Henry VIII, was Elizabeth’s father, was married to Anne Boleyn. But, Anne was Henry’s second wife which has never been a “normal” thing.