He was able to exercise personal control over the executive branch and carried out policy decisions as an individual rather than a collective body, with the use of a Prime Minister’s department of special advisors, enforcers and public relations accountable to and in direct service of Blair himself, and consequently, to an extent effectively killed off the use of the cabinet. Blair became increasingly seen by politicians as a ‘chief-executive’ rather than the ‘chairman of the board’. When Labour came into power in 1997 Jonathon Powell, Chief of Staff at the Prime Minister’s Office famously warned senior civil servants to expect ‘a change from a feudal system of barons to a more Napoleonic system’. Blair’s No.10 aides asserted that ‘Cabinet died years ago’, claiming they wanted to replace the department barons with a Bonapartist system’. Blair sought to centralise policy making through structural changes to the Prime Minister’s office and the Cabinet Office.
How far was the collapse of the liberal state caused by ww1? Just before World War 1 the liberal state was showing many weaknesses such unstable governments that were only lasting 18 months. They were also struggling to accommodate new social and economic forces which lead to extremist parties taking seats in parliament. Some historians believe that the liberal state was failing before the intervention of ww1 however some believe that it was due to ww1 and because of ww1 it lead to radical groups taking power. When Italy intervened into ww1 it was divided there were two camps.
Like presidents, modern prime ministers can generate different political resources through these different roles and the techniques required by them. At the same time and in similar fashion to presidential politics, prime ministers are increasingly monitored and assessed according to criteria that are quite different to those experienced by senior colleagues, also like Presidents a modern day prime minister is often voted in due to factors that have nothing/ little to do with their political agendas, for example in 1997 Tony Blair
This meant that the House of Lords could no longer veto money bills and could only delay public bills for up to two years. The House of Lords initially tried to reject this bill. The reigning monarch, George V threatened to create sufficient Liberal peers to overcome the present Conservative majority if the bill was not passed however. The House of Lords scared of losing their Conservative
"Parliament is subject to the elected dictatorship of government." How far do you agree with this view? This is a serious problem that has occurred form the type of constitution that we as a country have upheld. Elected dictatorship can only be in practice if the Government has the majority of the seats in the Commons. This Governmental style has been used in the recent year in the form of Thatcher, Blair and Brown all of who practised this in some degree to get what they wanted.
The strikes origins can be seen to stem from tensions between the government and the unions, particular the NUM. The Ridley Plan, drawn up by rightist Conservative MP Nicolas Ridley, detailed suggestions how the government should go about defeating another miner’s strike on the scale of the 1972 Coal Miner’s Strike which seriously damaged the Conservative’s image, destroying their overall majority in parliament in the General Election of February 1974, in which the Labour party came out with a minority government, until the October election of the same year, which really did cement the Labour government by handing them a majority of three seats. It was out of this that the Ridley Plan was born, seeking to ‘cut off the money supply to the strikers and make the union finance them' and to having failsafe plans in place to avoid the three day week introduced on January 1st and ran until March 7th, which showed and emphasised the power of the worker. A strike nearly occurred in 1981, when the government had a similar plan as it had had in 1974 to close 23 pits, but the threat of a strike was then enough to force the government to back down. It was widely believed that a confrontation had been averted only for the short term, and the Yorkshire miners passed a resolution that a strike
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
Although this happens infrequently there have been cases where Commons has voted against government. Good examples of this are with the Gurkhas row in 2008 and more prominently Blair’s plans to extend the The powers of the whip and party loyalty are diminishing during this coalition. Reports suggest that the voting behaviour of coalition MPs show that rebellion is at a postwar high. Similarly the last Labour government towards the end had major difficulties from backbenchers, with 112 Labour backbenchers going against the government at least once. Backbench rebellions have been more frequent than any since the second world war and for some MPs rebellion against the coalition is becoming a habit.
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.
This the King used as an excuse for a dramatic alteration in his government. In the beginning of Pitt’s rule, he governed a minority government. This was a great challenge for Pitt as he was young and inexperienced and facing the strong and experienced oppositions of Burke, Fox, North and Portland. However, we can see that with the King’s support, Pitt was able to gain more popularity amongst independent MPs. By March 1784, the majority had dramatically decreased and George III dissolved parliament and called a general election.