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
It is difficult for a Backbench MP to influence government policy if a government has a large majority in Parliament. The power of individual backbench MPs is reduced making it harder to challenge the government. Also, the PM has powers of patronage which demand loyalty; few MPs want to cause a general election by defeating the government. Thus accepting their fate as lobby
However with reference to the source it was Gordon Brown. There are many factors the prime minister takes into account when appointing cabinet ministers Firstly he takes into consideration if he/she is a close ally. For example in the cabinet today a close ally/friend of the PM(David Cameron) is George Osborne who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Similarly, Gordon Brown appointed Darling and Straw who was close ally’s to him. Furthermore, another factor the prime minister takes into account when appointing cabinet ministers is expertise.
The most senior members are the prime minister, secretaries of state, Ministers of state and parliamentary under-secretaries. The Prime minister has the duty of being in charge and selects the other members of government. There are many important departments in central government and they all are crucial but are different roles in controlling the country. The departments include home office and department of health, but also involve sport and media and the department of culture. These departments are ruled by Secretaries state that has complete liability and are staffed by impartial civil servants who get their income from money provided by parliament.
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.
A government with a minority of seats in the Commons might however lose a vote of No Confidence and would then have to resign - this last happened to the minority Labour government of Callaghan in 1979. Parliament does, however, have important SCRUTINY functions. In other words, the executive (the prime minister and all other ministers) have to explain and justify their policies and actions to parliament. Ministers (by rotation) answer questions by backbenchers during the daily Question Time (both orally and in writing), while the prime minister answers questions every Wednesday. The oral questions are sometimes dominated by loyal backbench government supporters, and it is often suggested that the media provide a more effective form of scrutiny than does parliament.
Unlike the American version, heads of government departments are not usually experts in their fields. Hence they are surrounded by experts from the Civil Service and what are referred to as 'special advisors'. The role of the cabinet is to discuss issues relevant to the country, registering and ratifying decision taken elsewhere in the cabinet system, discusses various points of view, weighs up arguments concerning whatever is being discussed and comes to a decision that is backed by the majority of the Cabinet. As such it becomes government policy, if supported in the House of Commons, and has the legitimacy of majority Cabinet support behind it. This means that decisions have collective responsibility behind them - all Cabinet members would be expected to publicly support and defend such policies.
A Prime Minister is entitled to personally chair cabinet meetings, control the appointment of ministers to cabinet and even control both the agenda and the minutes of a meeting. The ability to appoint ministers gives the Prime Minister a certain amount of power in
After all, if the people don’t like it, they can always vote them out of office! This dilemma has often been debated about a representative government: are the elected officials expected to vote the way the majority of his or her constituents would desire, as amplified by the famous observer of American democracy Alexis de Tocqueville? Or, are elected officials expected to
With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the prime minister’s prerogative powers. (10 marks) The prime minister has formal powers, which have derived from the Royal Prerogative. These powers are also exercised by other ministers. The prime minister is able to appoint ministers and other senior figures. The key power he has is patronage, which enables the prime minister to appoint politicians who share his views, helping him in his position effectively.