Controlling the Parliament and the House of Commons

Something based on this belief may well be valid but with numerous pieces of evidence that suggest the traditional role of the British Prime Minister is becoming more presidential and modern society adhering less to written convention, it has become far less clear who wields the most domestic power outside of conventional parameters. Both the UK Prime Minister and US president are the key figures in their countries politics. The UK Prime Minister has no formal written role but is rather a product of convention and historical evolution. His main powers include those of patronage, the control of the cabinet and its agenda, and the overall direction of government policy, both of head of government and leader of the party in power. In contrast, the US president has an official outlined role.

Why the Executive is Able to Dominate Parliament in the British Political System The executive has always been a fundamental body in the British political system, the executive’s dominance is a result of party politics and of reformation designed to undermine the bodies responsible for scrutinising the Government. Patronage has always been essential in maintaining the power of the executive, especially the Prime minister. Discipline is promoted in the governing body with the use of whips to enforce party policy and encourage ministers to toe party line, the use of pagers has recently been adopted by the Labour Party to ensure Labour MPs are sure of the parties’ policies and developments that have occurred. As appointments to the executive are controlled by the Premier party loyalty is seen as imperative in order to “climb the political ladder.” By encourage obedience regarding supporting party policy the Governing party reduce backbencher desertion and show a unified front towards both the public and opposition, which obviously strengthens the executives grip on power. Although party whips main job is to inform and ensure that all parties in the House of Commons are satisfied with its business timetable, their second role is of greater significance to their importance in supporting the executive.

At times Westminster Parliament is very effective in holding the executive accountable by use of scrutiny and various other mechanisms. However, this is not necessarily the case in times of huge majorities in favour of the executive such as in the cases of Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. In short, the effectiveness of Westminster Parliament depends on the situation in terms of (the biggest factor being) degree of majority, presence of war, unity of the party and hostility of the media.

Cabinet government model tells us that it’s a reminder that despite the growth of the PM power no PM can survive if he or she loses the support of the cabinet. Cabinet government is kept alive by the fact that PM’s authority is linked to... ... middle of paper ... ...he party. Only that the electorate increasingly demand ‘visible leadership’ rather than old-fashioned party politics as the focal point of government. The Prime Minister is dependent on support from parliament and cannot exist without it. Other sources of authority within the cabinet might pose a threat/challenge or moderate the Prime Minister’s authority (as seen with powerful ministers such Gordon Brown and Mo Mowlam).

The government proposes usually around 95% of the bills passed. Also from 1997-2005 the Labour party had not lost a bill. Another reason why Britain is considered to be an elective dictatorship is the limited powers of parliament, which has led to the undermining of parliamentary sovereignty. The central issue to why Britain has become an elective dictatorship is the decline in strength of parliament even though it is regarded formally as the sovereign body within the constitution. Recent developments and modifications have meant that Parliament’s effectiveness in holding the executive to account, restraining the executive and scrutinising the... ... middle of paper ... ... in the process of legislation.

The appointed legislature is the House of Lords, and they constitute the unwritten constitution, acting as an extra safety measure, also with the ability to criticize and approve laws. The judiciary upholds the law and represents such as the UK courts of law. The crown is the monarch, and Her Majesty’s role is to represent the United Kingdom as a symbol of ceremony and tradition, and sign bills into law. The most essential element that distinguishes the Westminster model is the executive power that is given to the largest party after a first past the post election. Additionally, with the fusion of powers, the party that controls the legislature also directs the executive branch.

who’s interests tend to be ignored. The house of commons is responsible for scrutinising the activities of the British government, this is to examine weather the government has exceed its authority or abuse its power, this demonstrate the fact that the house of common can be described as a watchdog carrying out scrutiny on the government. However the problem is that Britain’s unwritten constitution means that the limits of the government’s power is not explicit, but as a matter of interpretation. Which always turns out to be in favour of the government e.g. the fact that all members of the British government are drawn from the legislature means that there is conflict of interest between parl and govt.

You only have to examine the ritual patterns of the British media to realise that the Prime Minister is taken as the representative and primary force of the executive and of government in general. If you look at Tony Blair 's control over cabinet meetings, the hiring and firing of ministers, his interference in departmental affairs, his use of civil service appointments and patronage, it 's pretty clear that the Prime Minister is no longer the mere leader of the cabinet, but the executive superior to the cabinet. However, one could argue that because the power of the cabinet is dependent on the power of the prime minister, the Prime Ministerial Model of British politics could potentially

Walter Bagehot regarded the Cabinet “as the crucial institution of government” describing it as the “efficient secret”. The assumption behind the traditional view is that Cabinet minister’s meet together to discuss all major issues of policy before coming to a collective decision, which then binds all members of government. Some critics have argued that Cabinet committees enhance the power of the Prime Minister; to Harold Wilson this was a simplistic view. Cabinet committees make government more effective and prevent the Cabinet being caught up in detail. Wilson said that it did not increase prime ministerial power since it would be difficult to ignore a decision made by a committee of Cabinet colleagues.

For a majority government, party discipline becomes an even more important issue as it is directly related to the term of the Prime Minister (PM). Under the rule of maintaining the confidence of the House, the PM must gain the support of the House in order to stay in his role. This is where high party discipline comes into place. With it, the PM will not have to worry about being dismissed by the Governor General. Should the high party discipline deteriorate and gives away into a low one, such as the one in the States, the government will be in a constant potential risk of collapsing into paralysis.