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.
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
It is said that the PM is ‘first among equals’ within their cabinet, all important decisions are discussed in Cabinet, however the PM ultimately makes the final decision, this can also act as a constraint on the PM’s dominance. An example of this would be Callaghan who ran a ‘Cabinet government’. Callaghan used his cabinet to agree over the IMF loan issue, with two weeks of consecutive cabinet meetings to come to a mutual agreement. This shows that Callaghan a PM was not dominating his cabinet, but was co-operating with his cabinet ministers, this can be seen as a constraint on the PM power over the political system; Callaghan was not able to make a decision immediately. Another example of a PM who did not dominate the political system is Major.
As a consequence, prime ministers have gradually institutionalised their involvement in policy. The view now, is that it is the prime minister, and not the cabinet, who dominates both the executive and Parliament. This happens because the prime minister is both the head of the civil service and the leader of the largest party in the Commons. As prime ministers have considerable authority in the management and controlling of cabinet, it is argued that cabinet has declined and so the power of the prime minister has increased. Prime ministers chair cabinet meetings, this enables prime ministers to harness the decision – making authority of the cabinet to their own ends.
A presidential system is a system of government where the executive branch is led by a person who serves as both head of state and head of government. That person is usually elected and titled "president", but can also be an unelected monarch. In contrast to parliamentary government, a president normally has a separate source of authority from that of the legislature. This means the executive (president) is accountable to the people directly, not the legislature. 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.
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.
The rise to power of a coalition government has made Consensus politics a key feature of UK party politics, since the nature of a coalition involves broad agreement on most basic policies between the two major political parties forming the coalition; the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The ability and will to negotiate and agree is of key importance if a coalition is to be able to govern effectively and it must be able to make the right agreements in the interests of society. In forming a coalition with the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrat party has been forced to modify or even abandon some of its policies as the conservative party was the party to gain the largest amount of votes in the election
This system tends to favour and give more opportunities to smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who currently feel that the first past the post system is unfair towards them and numerous other parties. The system also tends to result in a coalition government being formed, which in some respects can be seen as a good thing, as proportional amounts of power are spread evenly between parties according to the amount of votes received. Northern Ireland, Germany, Australia and France all use different proportional systems at this current time however it is also a key issue in the UK at the moment, as we can see from the recent AV referendum which was held this year. Subsequently it was the decision of the Liberal Democrats to hold the election. Proportional systems are already currently being used in some parts of the UK, and is quite successful where it is in place.
Thus, this can give enrichment to Cameron’s power as this can ensure that he gains a majority of support from his cabinet by simply removing those who he feels are untrustworthy despite the fact that he cannot remove every single minister he dislikes. If Cameron was to do this, he would be viewed as an egotist much like the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Therefore, it can be debated that Cameron’s choice of the employment of cabinet ministers may be seen as a weak deterrent of his power. Furthermore, another point to support the view that the PM has enough limits is the fact that they can be seen as weak due to events that are out of their control. We can see this if we look back to the London riots
Due to the political development during the 20th century, the PM has increasingly gotten more and more power. The main reason for this is that the PM normally is the leader of a strong majority government, and because his or hers party normally also has a clear majority in the House of Commons, it is quite easy to gain acceptance for proposed laws than can dramatically change the British society. Famous Prime Ministers as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair are proves of that. Devolution is a process in which power is being transferred from a central government to a sub national level, for instance a regional, local or state level. In the UK, this means that the Parliament’s power in London is decreased, while the local power in the national assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as the parliament in Scotland, is increased.