Parliament may face difficulties in controlling executive power as the government usually has an overall majority. This is especially the case when there has been a creation of a large majority after elections such as 1997 and 2001 with Labour majorities of 179 and 167 respectively. Majorities of 66 in 2005 and 83 with the coalition in 2010 have also been recorded. This allows the government to claim a mandate from the people for its policies when it is elected to power. Therefore the parliament lacks the legitimate right to ignore the mandate and tends to accept the government’s right to govern.
Advisers have always received less accountability than MP’s as advisers do not represent constituencies which provide scrutiny, advisers on the other hand funnel accountability onto the Prime Minister such as Tony Blair. With this done, there is increased media attention on the Prime Minister. With increased attention on Prime Ministers, presidential factors such as style of leadership and charm come into play which are not requirements for Prime Ministers. These spin doctors have also been placed as advisers such as Steve Hilton who was known for working for David Cameron as a think tank. By replacing experienced civil servants with appointed advisers David Cameron created a customised department which suits him.
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.
This source of power is also affected by members of the cabinet whom are too powerful and important to easily dismiss, most recently famous was during Tony Blair’s leadership, 1997 – 2007, and the pressure he received off Gordon Brown to leave. The majority a Prime Minister receives in a general election also alters the power that they have. If there is a large majority then a Prime Minister has, arguably, got more of a political mandate than a leader with a
Such may include the executive, judiciary and legislature (Thomas, 2008). This paper seeks to argue that the United States Constitution limits the presidential powers, and thus governing presidents should act in the best interest of the public. The presidency is the popular symbol of governmental authority. Therefore, the president is the chief administrator or the chief executive of a given country. In most countries, the presidency is a constitutional office with a specific term and a specific procedure for electing the president.
They include the power of commander-in-chief of the armed forces and chief foreign policy maker, and the power to appoint or dismiss government ministers. These powers are especially important because they are not under the control of Parliament. A second source of prime-ministerial power is his position as leader of the governing party. This effectively means that he is chief policy-maker. This is especially true since the role of parties as policy-making machines has gradually declined.
This power certainly erodes the idea of ‘first among equals’. However, it must be noted that cabinet could have taken this decision as a whole, though it is unlikely. Further the Prime Minister decides the policy of the cabinet and thus the government, the party and the country. Such power, is argues, is too much for one person to comprehend and bear. The Prime Minister as the leader of his political party is subject to the parties support and his ability to whip his majority in the House of Commons to pass his policies and legislation into law.
President Nixon started to present the idea that the federal government was too powerful, and that the states needed to have more power back and begin a form of decentralisation and a return of powers back to the states. He felt that the federal government should be small to promote self reliance and the American idea of 'rugged individualism'. As a reaction to creative federalism and the great society programme, he severely reduced aid to the states, and instead of issuing categorical grants, he would give states block grants, which would effectively strengthen the 10th amendment. This is one reason why federalism has changed since the 60s, because a new president had a different idea on how much the government should be intervening on state issues. Another reason why federalism changed since the 1960s is due to the fact that President Carter, a democrat president carried on Nixon's ideas of New Federalism.
Since the subordination of the monarchy under parliament and the increasingly democratic methods of parliamentary government, there has been the question of whether parliament holds a supreme ability to legislate and whether it should or should not. Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration; it involves a large degree of self-governing and directly elected national assemblies. The passing of power to
Below is a list of the topics to be covered in Assignment 1. This sheet is to be used as a tick sheet to assist you in writing your assignment. • Local Government, * National Government, * European Union * Regional Government In your presentation include the following institutions; • Monarchy - this is the oldest form of a government, the king or queen it the head of this government and has the right to make and pass down legislation resides with an elected Parliament but now they do not have an important role within the monarchy, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation. The Monarch takes roles which have continuously changed over one thousand years. The Monarch has a minor role as