Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. This therefore often renders opposition as a form of scrutiny meaningless and also means that it is difficult for the executive to be held to account. Party loyalty is also very strong. The power of prime ministerial patronage renders many MPs excessively docile and loyal, hence the term ‘lobby fodder’. With the rise in the professional politician many prefer to remain loyal in order to gain power and move up in the hierarchy as opposed to become a rebel who remains in the back benchers.
Wolsey changed areas of government such as the justice system and revised areas such as finances and parliament structure. His relationship with the King was significant, as he would be the higher power and would need to negotiate with the King and yet still get the correct decision. Wolsey managed his relationship with henry well, he tried to get the right outcome for the country but never forced it upon Henry, not damaging their relationship and keeping Wolsey in power. Wolsey had a poor approach with justice; in court he gained a poor reputation for taking bribes and his relationship with England’s nobility was poor to say the least. The financial approach was a tough period in finance; with a King that wanted to spend and go to war, and Wolsey had no choice but to bow to his majesty’s request.
Overtime, the role of the cabinet may have increasingly been seen to be less and this may have changed peoples’ perception on the system of government used in the UK. The fact that a Prime Minister can dominate parliamentary proceedings gives him/her great power, and this has been linked to the concept of an ‘elective dictatorship’. Prime Minister dominance has occurred in recent years, with the leadership styles of Thatcher and Blair being of particular significance. Blair as prime minister used bilateral meetings with ministers, to discuss important policy decisions. This led to dominance over the cabinet and Blair being seen more as a ‘President’ than a Prime Minister.
Source 3 shows a clear disagreement though, as it states Callaghan “struggled to rule effectively until a vote of no-confidence” was called upon. Throughout his government, Callaghan biggest concern was to maintain economic stability but in doing so had destroyed Britain’s industry. As a result of this Callaghan will forever be associated with the Winter of Discontent incident which is exactly what source 3 is suggesting. James, Callaghan is a man of experience is partially why he suited the role of Prime Minister. Source 2 states “The political skills he had perfected in his previous posts were just what was needed” which supports the view that indeed, James Callaghan was a man of experience.
In 2010 backbenchers were threatening to rebel over tuition fees. This was enough to force concessions to be made so the rebellion wasn’t as large as expected. It could be said that they failed because the bill wasn’t defeated but in a way it was a success as changes were made. This shows that the image of being lobby fodder is being shaken off by the more outspoken MPs. It is difficult for a Backbench MP to influence government policy if a government has a large majority in Parliament.
Indecisive people can pass on their responsibilities and “pass the buck,” and advisory people can propose their concepts and lobby for acceptance, but the President can ultimately turn to nobody else. Presidents must make the hard decisions. It is a heavy mantle to bear on those presidential shoulders. It is lonely at the top. President Johnson’s “wise men” possessed depth in their areas of expertise beyond that of the President, who was a master mover of legislation to accomplish domestic social programs but very much out of his league in military matters and international relations.
Discuss how two Prime Ministers differed in their treatment and use of the cabinet (10 marks) A Prime Minister’s (PM) relationship and utilization of his/her cabinet can be an important factor in determining a successful premiership as PM. PMs over recent decades have differed in various ways in their treatment and use of the cabinet. Two examples of PMs who have contrasted in their approaches to their cabinet are John Major (PM from 1990-1997) and Tony Blair (PM from 1997-2007). John Major can be regarded as a more transactional leader, in the sense that he took a preference to a more collective cabinet; decisions would be made in cooperative meetings involving all cabinet ministers and there was room for compromise on certain issues discussed in Cabinet Office. In that regard, Major adopted a more collegiate style in his cabinet, making sure that all ministers had a contribution in the discussions at hand.
The Chancellor was the chief executive member of the Reichstag, and commander in chief of armed forces, and was appointed by the President on the basis of party numbers, the ability of the individual, and the wishes of other members. The Chancellor could be removed by the President for misconduct or for breaching the terms of the constitution. The Chancellor and ministers were obliged to resign also in the event the Reichstag passed a vote of no confidence. The Chancellor was, in principle, the leading political and administrative civil servant but, in practice, became only a committee chairman during the early days of the Weimar constitution. Only with the rise of Adolf Hitler from 1933 did the Chancellor begin to employ the full powers contained within
The executive branch is made of the president and higher power like the military. It’s actually the branch that is most watched for corruption because of the enforcements it possesses to veto. This is how Madison claims how each branch checks and balances are. The legislative branch checks the executive by impeachment from the House, a trial of impeachment by Senate treaties, overriding vetoes, approval of judicial and executive appointees, and
Education: The process in which an individual gains pointless knowledge for the opportunity to get wealthy. America's education system is awful at properly educating their students. The type of education that is taught in high school is only to prepare you for what you're actually going to learn in college. A lot of the courses being offered at high schools are impractical in our daily lives, such as trigonometry, Hawaiian history and British literature. These courses are useless unless you're going to major in one of those subjects, but most of us aren't.