Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
And lastly the regency crisis of 1788 meant that Pitt could use this to gain favour with the king and gather support from his own party and draw it away from the opposition. These circumstances proved effective in propelling Pitt’s domination but without his own skill he would not have been able to dominate, for example his financial skill ensured that Britain benefitted from the industrial revolution as was the handling of the regency crisis which completely favoured Pitt but he
Blair also favoured the use of special advisors over his cabinet which lessened the role of the cabinet. Both Blair and Thatcher were popular, and this popularity allowed them to dominate the executive and make ‘cabinet government’ look ‘dead’. Both Prime Ministers’ had mandates from the
More dominant figures such as Thatcher and Blair have capitalised heavily on both strength of their personality and their parliamentary majorities. The creation of a more developed policy unit in Downing Street is effectively creating a "Prime Minister's Department". However it can be argued that the prime minister such as Tony blair, has not got a chance of effectively being a president, for example he prefered to dominate foreign and international affairs. The individuals of the UK, could argue that instead of focusing on other countries such as Pakistans, Afghanistan, he should of helped the UK more, improving and making it a better place to live in. An example of where this is present is, he distanced himself from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so cut himself off from civil servants that could have questioned his views.
However it could be argued that Wilhelm II’s aims to crush socialism in response to Caprivi’s tolerance for Socialism in his years as chancellor disagree with this view as it suggests he is aiming for more of an autocratic state where he holds state control. Another notable factor which suggests Germany was a parliamentary democracy is Wilhelm II could ignore the views of the centre party; failed attempts to previously dismiss them such as the Kulturkampf were a failure because the party’s strong political views are extremely influential, and they have always had a substantial amount of seats in the party. This in turn meant the government was influenced by the parliament. However, there were many events which demonstrate the Kaiser
Furthermore, minor parties which secure a large number of votes, Liberal Democrats, will command a more reflective percentage of the seats in the Commons as each vote cast will be viewed with equal value over the whole country meaning a minority vote could no longer decide which party dominates the Commons. Overall, it will make the House of Commons more democratic but also at the same time making it more legitimate and giving it greater authority as the people votes actually reflect more in the government of the day. However there are some who do not like the idea of Proportional representation as they believe that by giving minority parties a greater representation will reduce the chances of one party dominating, as to some
This certainly gives the impression of more individual dominance rather than collective decision-making – as has been the case for other recent PMs But when we consider such developments in terms of actual increases in power for the PM, it may be a matter of style rather than substance. David Cameron has a new problem of trying to fabricate presidentialism within the current government, but knows that it’s going to be
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.
Since 1997, the government was conservative for 18 years and wanted to reform the House of Lords. This was successfully achieved by the removal of heredity peers from their voting rights. However, Devolution for Scotland has been the most successful constitutional reform overall since 1997 because it has been able to achieve much more than expected e.g. gain more power. Scotland felt it needed more power and
This could be one reason why the American President can only stay in power for two terms. If the ministers surrounding the PM cannot take collective responsibility for their decisions then it is easy for not only the public but your opposition to place blame for a particular issue on the PM’s head. Thus creating a great deal of ill will towards that PM over time. Thatcher’s ‘sofa cabinet’ has been an idea carried on by Blair and Cameron as both tend to surround themselves with advisors of their own choosing as opposed to the cabinet ministers, acting very independently. However, it was Blair that truly started the media frenzy surrounding Prime Ministerial candidates around the general election.