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.
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. Thatcher was described as presidential because she was known to dominate cabinet discussions and was an example of spatial leadership. Tony Blair was known to avoid making discussion in cabinets, in order to avoid confrontation and instead discuss policy with a handful of close colleagues; this is known as ‘sofa politics’, which was similar to Harold Wilson’s ‘kitchen cabinet’. The UK Prime Minister is now effectively a President as the cabinet and key government departments have seen their role taken over by the prime minister and a small group of Downing Street officials and advisers. Thus the machinery of the central government has become increasingly similar to that of the White House machinery.
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.
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.
Before even the invention of the television in the 1930s, the media has influenced our people’s opinions through newspapers and pamphlets. Now with technology booming, the media seems to seep into every corner of our lives, becoming almost inescapable. So, how much does it affect our vision of a highly publicized leader such as the president? It seems that the images we see of the president through the media are the only ones we are given, and it is hard to create an individualized view through the media’s eyes and not our own. And so, while people may view the president and presidency from various media angles and generate their own opinions, the overall sentiment of the media towards the president has a way of swaying such opinions, as we can never clearly and objectively see what’s going on for ourselves.
Prime ministers chair cabinet meetings, this enables prime ministers to harness the decision – making authority of the cabinet to their own ends. Therefore, British prime ministers are as powerful as it is claimed because the prime minister can effectively determine the role and significance of cabinet. For example the “westland affair” in 1986, proved a political scandal for the British conservative government. Thatcher was not willing to compromise, resulting in Heseltine’s resignation, proving the ability of the prime minister to control cabinet. Furthermore, party leadership; it sets the prime minister apart from all other ministers and gives him or her leverage across the wider governmental system.
The strong leadership of Grey over the Whigs was also a vital part of the road to reform as Grey was determined to get a Reform bill passed through Parliament (Reform that you can preserve) because of growing pressure from the middle class businessmen in Large cities that had no representation such as Birmingham and Manchester. The Political Unions such as the BPU and NPU helped in the passing of the Reform act by opposing the Duke of Wellington as he tried to form a Government after Grey had filed a resignation, They came up with the slogan “To stop the Duke, go for gold!” They took all of their stored gold out of public and private banks and planned to stop paying taxes. Though in reality The NPU and BPU could talk the talk, but they had no intention on starting a Revolution, that was more the area of the Radical NUWC who wanted to do away with the Monarchy and the House of
A function that demonstrates that the House of Commons is effective is because ministers are regularly questioned and held accountable. An advantage of this is that it increases constituency representation and scrutinises legislation. For example during Prime Minister question time MPs can bring different examples forward from their own constituencies which can allow them to demonstrates problems with a Bill, thereby representing people within their constituencies more. At election times the government becomes directly accountable to the people; for example in 2007 the Labour government saw popular support fall from 41%. In the House of Commons, Bills introduced under the ten-minute rule are one of the ways in which backbench MPs (private Members) can introduce legislation.
The House of Commons holds both legislative functions and is also designed to hold the executive accountable. It can be argued that due the introduction, and reforms, of select committees and the regular questioning of ministers the House of Commons is effective. However, it could also be argued that party loyalty and whips have become more important than effective scrutiny. The House of Commons can be seen to be effective in the cases where it has defied the government. Although this happens infrequently there have been cases where Commons has voted against government.
The election of the leader is very important part of political parties as people now vote more for a prime minster than governing party, for example conservative’s won over Labour because David Cameron was seen as more enthusiastic and inspirational then Gordon brown, where he was seen as dull and boring. This means individual members in Labour have a significant role and power in the party. However in the conservative the individual members don’t have as much power as the Labour members. The election of the party leader is different to the Labour party, the MP's select the two final candidates for leader through numerous votes, and the members only get to vote at the end of the process for party leader. This means that individual members don’t have the same amount of power than the MP's.