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.
This shows that the PM, whether he feels that it is necessary or not, must ask advice of his cabinet ministers and especially of those who are Liberal Democrats in order to prevent unfairness in the cabinet. As a result, it is clear that the limitations within a coalition government is of full awareness to Cameron. Yet, it could be argued that David Cameron’s powers within the cabinet can considerably enhance his parliamentary power. Evidence of this can be brought from the fact that he can make the decision of which ministers get to continue with their jobs in the form of cabinet reshuffles. Thus, this can give enrichment to Cameron’s power as this can ensure that he gains a majority of support from his cabinet by simply removing those who he feels are untrustworthy despite the fact that he cannot remove every single minister he dislikes.
As a consequence, prime ministers have gradually institutionalised their involvement in policy. The view now, is that it is the prime minister, and not the cabinet, who dominates both the executive and Parliament. This happens because the prime minister is both the head of the civil service and the leader of the largest party in the Commons. As prime ministers have considerable authority in the management and controlling of cabinet, it is argued that cabinet has declined and so the power of the prime minister has increased. Prime ministers chair cabinet meetings, this enables prime ministers to harness the decision – making authority of the cabinet to their own ends.
However, since the 1950s, many have argued that the growth of prime ministerial power as a consequence of aspects such as the media, have led to an increase in dominance over the cabinet. In this essay, I will be arguing in favour of why I believe the prime minister is portrayed to dominate the UK’s political system to a large extent. The prime minister acquires many powers that have varied over the past years for different prime ministers depending on individual strength and personality. For example, a strong figure such as Margaret Thatcher may have taken full affect of her formal and actual powers as opposed to a less authoritative figure such as John Major. Prime ministerial power partly originates from being appointed by the Queen and it is they who then have the authority to hire, fire, promote and demote all ministers within their cabinet and government.
This is similar to the White House staff which is at the disposal of the US President. * Growing importance of the media in politics has contributed a greater concentration on the individual holder of office and portrays him as an individual spokesperson. Eg. Filming the prime minister giving statements outside 10 Downing Street, PM question time, these all indicate towards the notion of the prime minister as an individual * The growing importance of foreign and military affairs, which are dominated by the prime minister, has contributed to the presidential feel for the office. When the prime minister has to negotiate foreign powers and attend international conferences he appears presidential, this
Both Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) and Tony Blair (1997-2007) have been described by some commentators as Prime Ministers who, whilst in office, had presidential-like characteristics. Thatcher was described as presidential because she was known to dominate cabinet discussions and was an example of spatial leadership. Tony Blair was known to avoid making discussion in cabinets, in order to avoid confrontation and instead discuss policy with a handful of close colleagues; this is known as ‘sofa politics’, which was similar to Harold Wilson’s ‘kitchen cabinet’. The UK Prime Minister is now effectively a President as the cabinet and key government departments have seen their role taken over by the prime minister and a small group of Downing Street officials and advisers. Thus the machinery of the central government has become increasingly similar to that of the White House machinery.
One way these rights could be defined is through a bill of rights that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual and also defines the legal extent the civil liberty. However, codified constitutions are sometimes to rigid as higher law is harder to change than statute law. It is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament then to amend a constitution as the Constitution is so entrenched. Therefore, it is difficult to keep a constitution up-to-date, this is very bad, especially in our modern ‘ever-changing environment. Furthermore, if we adopt a codified constitution then one of the key principles in the UK’s representative democracy would be completely undermined, Parliamentary Sovereignty would effectively be abolished as a codified constitution would mean the establishment of an authority higher than
Comparing Canada’s and the United States’ government system, we can see just how different they are from each other. With Canada, they have a responsible government, where the executive functions at will of the legislative body. This type of government is the best way to maintain stability, because if the government wants to create a bill, it has to be passed by the House of Commons. However if that bill does not pass, then the Parliament would have a vote of non-confidence. If they get a majority in favour of non-confidence, then the prime minister must call an election.
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.
Furthermore the increase in prime-ministerial or even ‘presidential’ government in the UK, with the leader of the executive having accumulated more power, makes it more difficult for Parliament to control executive power. It could be argued that Parliament does control executive power effectively due to the range of scrutiny methods that is available; to make sure the government and executive powers are held responsible for their decisions. An important feature of the Westminster system