Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Power of british pm
Cabinet/parliamentary System Of Government
Power of british pm
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Power of british pm
Evaluating Britain's Government
A Cabinet Government is referred to a government in which most
executive power is invested in a cabinet, in which members often act
with collective responsibility and so must support all Governmental
decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with
them. A Prime Ministerial Government on the other hand, is a
government where the prime minister is dominant in terms of the
executive and is able to bypass the cabinet.
There has been a debate in the British political system about whether
Britain has a Prime Ministerial or Cabinet government since the early
1960s. This was mainly because of two events that occurred in 1962.
Firstly, the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dismissed one third of
his Cabinet which resulted in the unpopularity of the government.
Secondly, Richard Crossman suggested that the term Prime Ministerial
government was more appropriate than the term Cabinet government. The
Macmillan incident suggested that the Prime Minister had strong powers
that he could use to appoint, dismiss and control his colleagues in
the Cabinet. There are several reasons due to which this debate is
once again emerged as an important theme.
Firstly, the Prime Minister controls a large number of posts which
gives him more patronage power. This means that the Prime Minister is
responsible for appointing key figures such as the senior judges, the
archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, senior military
officers, the Governor of the Bank of England, and many others.
Sometimes other members of the parliament may appoint these important
key posts, but there is a certain amount of Prime Ministerial
influence to them.
Secondly, the Cabinet meetings have become less frequent and shorter.
This suggests that the Cabinet has lost importance. For instance, in
the past the Prime Minister Question sessions were held twice a week
for 15 minutes each, but Tony Blair changed it to one half an hour
session every Wednesday. This also suggests that few important
decisions are made in the Cabinet and most of them are just made by
The governor general, who assigns judges of the federal courts and advises the prime minister as well as accomplishing those duties of the prime minister. The prime minister has power to assign and fire Cabinet ministers, and hundreds of other federal government office holders. The Crown Corporation that is established by the Government of Canada.
In recent times the in the UK we have seen the more frequent use of
The composition of the ministry and cabinet also depends on how many seats the government controls in the House of Commons. A minority government is created when one single party has less than half the seats in the House of Commons yet more than the other parties when they stand alone. One of the main advantages in having a minority government is that the government must work with the other parties to come to a consensus regarding bills and policies; in doing this, there is broader representation of Canadian interests. While this is a benefit for Canadian citizens, it is a drawbac...
The Success of the First Two Labour Governments was Outweighed by the Failures in Britain The success of Labour's governments during its two terms in power, in the 1920's easily outweighed its failures and shortcomings, in Britain. This was a Labour government that introduced the idea of free mass secondary education, built over half a million houses, and through Labour established Britain as a major player in European and World politics. The Labour government were in power at the time of the Great Depression, and their failure to address the serious economic crisis bought about as a result of an economic downturn, following the short boom after the war, may be seen as a severe weakness in the second government. However, these flaws may be seen as a small aspect of the overall policy of the Labour government, and cannot out-way the long-term success of their social and political policy plans.
During this semester in Federal Government, I 've learned more in this class alone than many other years I 've been here. Mrs. Rishi has been a marvolous instructor and I couldn 't ask for more, her teaching style is what exactly fits my person to learn better. Countless key terms and basic knowledge of the American history and development have been jammed into my brain, that way those tests come as essay as they go. I 'll be explaining ten important lessons I 've learned during this course that seems to stick out more than the rest.
To assess the flaws of the British government, we should start with how they run their government: by monarchy. A monarchy passes the power and responsibility of running a kingdom down by blood relatives. This can give power to those who are hated, unfit to rule, or plain incompetent for such a role. The tradition dates back to centuries where people thought their monarchs were godlike. However, the current King of Britain seems less like a divine god and more like a creature that crawled from the
The combined strength of the Government keeps it running effectively and efficiently. Without the individual branches, there would be chaos and hidden agendas would abound. Congress has its own particular strength, which in my opinion would be the House of Representatives’. Without this, individual states would cease to have a voice within and legislation would pass that would not favor a majority of them. As quoted here, “Congress reflects us in all our strengths and all our weaknesses. It reflects our regional idiosyncrasies, our ethnic, religious, and racial diversity, our multitude of professions, and our shadings of opinion on everything from the value
Twelve members of the cabinet preside over departments or ministries of the government, which include the ministries of justice, foreign affairs, finance, education, health and welfare, agriculture and forestry, and labor. The remaining cabinet members are the so-called "ministers of the state," which include the deputy prime minister and heads of various agencies such as the economic planning agency and the science and technology agency.
In Mellon’s article, several aspects are mentioned supporting the belief that the prime minister is too powerful. One significant tool the prime minister possesses is “… the power to make a multitude of senior governmental and public service appointments both at home and abroad,” (Mellon 164). Mellon goes on to state the significance the prime minister has when allowed to appoint the government’s key member...
Within parliamentary systems, the government i.e. the legislature consist of the political party with the most popularly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in the main legislative parliament e.g. the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is appointed by the party to lead as the executive decision-maker, and the legislature work to support and carry out their will (Fish, 2006). In presidential systems, the President is directly elected with the support of their political party, with the legislative being separately elected and, in the case of the United States, being made up of representatives from different states (BIIP, 2004). This essay will provide examples to suggest that Presidents are generally more powerful than Prime Ministers. As two of the oldest forms of parliamentary and presidential governments (Mainwaring and Shugart, 1997), the United Kingdom and the United States will be the main focus of this essay, but other parliamentary and presidential countries will be mentioned.
Since the 1950s there has been a rise in the power of the Prime Minister, specially Crossman in 1962 and Benn, who in 1979 referred to “a system of personal rule in the very heart of our Parliamentary democracy”. As Britain has remained the “world’s most successful representative democracy”. The role of the executive has significantly increased at a great deal since the end of World War 2, however, the outward dangers of a supplementary individual hegemony attached to the Prime Minister shouldn’t be overemphasized. Although the modern examples of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair whose styles of leadership have each been labelled as presidential. In this essay I will be assessing the four main prime minister’s power and if his or her powers constrained under the British system. For instances, the power of patronage, cabinet power, the party leadership and the mass media. These are four main factors of the prime minister and its effectiveness can be argued.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are in constant debate all over the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary system with presidential democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a
Much like the majority of political science classes, view and opinion are the basis to answering every question. At the start of this course I believed that as a citizen I have a role to contribute to society. I knew that I hold a responsibility to participate in elections and to remain informed. This is my responsibility to the government, but what is its responsibility to me? I could not give you a confident answer. Yes, I’m aware of the basics laid out in Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the many other federal laws, but striping it down to the basics I didn’t know what the base duty of the government for citizens was. Going into this class, I would have told you someone like Karl Marx would be amongst the top theorist to influence current government. The United States has moved more in the direction of capitalism and away from the importance of democracy. This course included reading
This fusion of power allows the people’s representatives in the legislature to directly engage the executive in debates discussion in issues that will bring positive development in the state. This is not possible in the presidential system since the legislative and the executives arms are constitutionally separated and thereby restricted to engage the legislature in a discussion in which reasons are advanced against some proposition or proposal. The outcome is that party leaders in parliamentary system are more reliable than those in presidential systems. Presidential systems have turned the aim of electoral campaign into personalities rather than platform and programs because the focus is on the candidate and not on the party in general. But parliamentary systems on the other hand focus much more relating structured they do not do anything outside the scope of the party. We can compare the quality of leadership or administration in British, Canadian prime minister to the United State president. In all the country presidential system of government are chosen because people think been a good leader is by popularity and the ability to win election not minding if the candidate is fit for the task of presidency. But in parliamentary system, the person that has high quality of leadership competent enough and trustworthy is
It is well known that the British political system is one of the oldest political systems in the world. Obviously, it was formed within the time. The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy, providing stability, continuity and national focus. The monarch is the head of state, but only Parliament has the right to create and undertake the legislation. The basis of the United Kingdom’s political system is a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, people think the role of the Queen as worthless and mainly unnecessarily demanding for funding, but is it like that?