To What Extent Can a Prime Minister's Party Reduce Their Power?

846 Words4 Pages
In theory a Prime Minister is Primus Inter Paras, he has a wide range of powers such as chairing the cabinet, appointing ministers and controlling the armed forces. A Prime Minister only holds the roll because they are a leader of a party. Issues such as policy disagreements and how to remove a Prime Minister will be discussed but ultimately it will be noted that currently the Liberal Democrats limit Cameron more than his own party. A party can remove a Prime Minister from their role as Prime Minister. This can be seen when looking at the two most powerful Prime Ministers in the post war era; Thatcher and Blair were in differing ways removed from their parties. Both Prime Ministers won three general elections and aspired to stay in office longer than they were able to. Thatcher faced a leadership challenge from within her party and while Heseltine got less votes than her, her cabinet made it clear to her that she had lost authority and that she should resign. She went on to describe this as ‘treachery with a smile upon its face’. Slightly less dramatically, Tony Blair faced a large rebellion in September 2006 led by ministers such as Tom Watson that forced him to promise to step down after a year had passed. Therefore party pressure has been able to bring down the most able Prime Ministers of recent years, however in both cases the parties only acted because the Prime Minister was increasingly unpopular and were therefore damaging their election prospects. However this was not the case with Gordon Brown in the 2010 general election campaign when after he spoke to a voter in he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster" and when asked what she said, he replied: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman." This along with his almost comically poor television persona lead to Brown becoming unpopular, yet still he
Open Document