Why was the Unreformed House of Commons able to Reform itself in 1832? The splintering of the Tory party into several different factions played a part the Reform bill being able to be passed through the House of Commons. It split between the Huskissonites, The Ultras and the Small group of Support Wellington and Peel had managed to maintain. In 1832 Wellington tried to make a new Cabinet at the behest of this king but this crumbled when Peel refused to become involved in a Government that would pass Reform. The strong leadership of Grey over the Whigs was also a vital part of the road to reform as Grey was determined to get a Reform bill passed through Parliament (Reform that you can preserve) because of growing pressure from the middle class businessmen in Large cities that had no representation such as Birmingham and Manchester.
The increase of central control through the introduction of Land Captains establishes his power rather than benefiting the people of Russia, therefore making Alexander III a reactionary. Contrastingly, Alexander III did scrap plans to destroy the zemstva completely, consequently giving some power to the people. The zemstva was an elective form of local government, initially in rural towns but was extended to towns and cities, which had responsibility for elementary education. Despite the
The ‘prime ministerial’ government thesis focuses upon the range of patronage available to the prime minister and his tendency to by-pass the Cabinet in making policy decisions - Mackintosh saw the Cabinet as little more than a clearing house and a court of appeal. Other factors are his control over the civil service, his dominance of the House of Commons, his high media profile, and his ability to appear ‘above politics’ and to make direct, statesmanlike appeals to the
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
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.
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.
56). He says that the Bush Administration strayed off the path and took a negative and forceful approach to other governments. And it is his beliefs that this is how China is gaining strength, and how the United States is slowly starting to fall from the top of the food chain. John Mearsheimer on the other hand is what you would call a realist. He aligns more with the thought of the political scientist named Thomas Hobbes who had his theory of the state of nature where everyone defends themselves in a state of war.
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.
As PM Cameron, in this case, can dismiss and appoint any cabinet members without the constraints of parliament. The only people he consults are his current senior ministers who tend to side with any decision the PM makes. An example of his appointments and dismissals in his cabinet is where Cameron reshuffled his cabinet earlier in the year. He appointed several females to important roles and even demoted Michael Gove to a ‘Whip’. One of the women he appointed was Nicky Morgan, who replaced Gove as Education Secretary.