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.
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.
When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity. Cameron on the other hand would expect less of this as he had entered a coalition from the very beginning, which suggests that the cabinet is naturally divided. With different ideologies, it is inevitable that there will be times of disagreements, which suggests that he would not be able to dictate
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.
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.
One reform that has been introduced is the House of Lords reform, which was first introduced in 1999 and then again in 2012 with the aim of making the House of Lords much more representative by getting rid of hereditary peers (people in the house of lords due to previous ties) and by allowing people to vote for who they want in the house. This reform has not gone far enough because as it is far from complete as legislation was proposed to create a partly or fully elected House of Lords but then were dropped by the Conservatives as they said no to a fully elected second chamber in 2012. However this reform has done a fair amount as now the House of Lords has far more legitimacy than it did before because 92 members of the house were removed as they were hereditary peers and so these 92 places were voted on clearly increasing legitimacy and to an extent representation as before this it was the only part of government that was fully unrepresentative going against the ideology of democracy. This shows that here progress is seemingly slow as while the reform is introduced is somewhat understated and not as full a reform as it could be, it is still a reform and shows changes in the government as now they are actually looking towards reform. Another reform that has been introduced is the human rights act, which was
Some MPS choose to be party delegates rather than conviction politicians because they fear of being sacked and losing their job, by not listening to the leader and following orders, instead speaking up against the leader’s views which could put them in a position where they could lose their job. For example George Galloway who was a conviction politician and said things that he felt was right, he was sacked by
However this was something that Wilson vowed he would not do. He believed that devaluing the pound would damage Britain's prestige in the world. This stubbornness from Wilson resulted in the devaluing of the Pound being delayed until November 1967. This mounted a lot of pressure on money markets and lost Wilson a lot of popularity. By finally giving in and devaluing the pound, Labours coherent reputation and authority was damaged.
Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror. At the end of the Crimean War, Alexander II realised that Russia was no longer a great military power. His advisers argued that a backwards economy which is reliant on the serfs could not compete with modernized powers such as Britain and France. He also became increasingly unpopular at this time, meaning he needed to do something
‘Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough.’ Discuss. Constitutional reform is defined as a process where the fundamental nature of the system of government is changed. Since 1997, in particular under the Blair administration, many significant constitutional reforms have taken place. These reforms include the House of Lords reform, the reform of the judiciary, devolution of power in the UK and reforms regarding authority of the EU and the effects of these reforms upon the government vary. These constitutional reforms were proposed to improve democracy and the legitimacy of the governments in the UK however there has been a sense that these reforms have occurred with no real end goal therefore it makes it difficult to consider how effective they will be and if they would even make a difference due to the political framework of the UK.