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.
Conviction politicians truly speak out their minds regardless of what the consequences would be. One example of a conviction politician would be George Galloway who used be a member of Labour party. In the parliament you would see that there are more Party Delegates than Conviction Politicians. There are many reasons for why there are more party delegates than conviction politicians in the Parliament some of the reasons might be: Fear of being sacked and losing their job, money, fame, ego and status and many more. 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.
How has coalition government affected party politics in the UK? A coalition government is a government in which two or more political parties are in power, reducing the dominance of any one party within that coalition. The usual reason given for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve enough votes to gain power. The UK currently has a First Past the Post electoral system which is not designed to create a coalition government and so the now coalition government is the first we have experienced in the UK. The arrival of a coalition government formed between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party in 2010 has affected UK party politics in various ways.
The election of the leader is very important part of political parties as people now vote more for a prime minster than governing party, for example conservative’s won over Labour because David Cameron was seen as more enthusiastic and inspirational then Gordon brown, where he was seen as dull and boring. This means individual members in Labour have a significant role and power in the party. However in the conservative the individual members don’t have as much power as the Labour members. The election of the party leader is different to the Labour party, the MP's select the two final candidates for leader through numerous votes, and the members only get to vote at the end of the process for party leader. This means that individual members don’t have the same amount of power than the MP's.
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.
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
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.
They are dependent on a coalition government because so far they have never had a majority in Parliament. Without the Conservatives choosing to form a coalition with them in order to create a majority, the Liberal Democrats would never have been able to come into power. Furthermore they’re becoming increasing unpopular in power due to breaking promises and being accused of ‘turning Tory’. This suggests that they have no political strength by themselves and that many potential voters will turn to alternatives, such as the Labour party, who could ultimately gain popularity due to the failures of the Liberal Democrats; therefore the UK is still a two party system favouring the Conservatives and Labour party. However on the other hand it is argued that the UK could not possibly be a two party system because the Conservatives wouldn’t have been able to come into power without the Liberal Democrats.
Discuss the view that the limits on the Prime Minister are too few and too ineffective (28 marks) It can be debated that the limits on the Prime Minister (PM) are too few and ineffective. However, I disagree with this view. David Cameron, the current PM of the United Kingdom, is arguably limited by the evolution of a Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. For example, Cameron is forced to consult ministers under the joint government or face backlash and in extreme conditions, ultimate rejection from ministers within both of the political parties. 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.
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.