How powerful is the Prime Minister?
Debate about the location of executive power has been a long running debate. Different views have been fashionable at different times. It would be a mistake, however, to treat these contrasting models of executive power as simply “right” or “wrong”. So complex and ever-fluctuating is executive power that none of these models fully explains whop has power in all cases and in the circumstances.
The traditional view of the UK executive emphasizes that power is collective and not personal. It is located in the cabinet rather than the PM. Within the cabinet’ all the ministers are equal. Each of them has the capacity to influence government policy. The PM is regarded as ‘first’ only in name. The theory of cabinet government is under pinned by the convention of collective responsibility. This helps to ensure cabinet collegiality. However, collective cabinet government in its formal sense is outdated. It goes back before the development of disciplined political parties. There is copious evidence of the Prime Minister’s dominance over the political system. Fore example, there has most certainly been a decline in ‘Collective Ministerial Responsibility’ in recent years. The premiership of Tony Blair has been marked by criticism over decision-making without adequate debate. However, a minister’s threat of resignation could potentially threaten the life of the government. All ministers therefore had to keep onboard. For example, Thatcher’s cabinet all told her to leave. 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). Similarly, the Civil Services’ influence in determining government is vast (due to permanence, neutrality, Unity anonymity). Moreover external factors/pressures can also constrain the Prime Minister’s powers such as the economic climate and the Government’s popularity etc. The dispersal of decision-making power to other key actors in the core executive (such as the Bank of England) has reduced the power concentrated in the Prime Minister’s hands.
For the MPs in Canada, party discipline is the core for their actions. For them, collective responsibility plays a big part in their agenda. As a party, they are held responsible for any decision that their party makes, and are expected to defend it at any given point of time. 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. Once the leader of the cabine...
If the parties in our governmental system would openly discuss about the difference in positions and in point of views within the groups in realizing these controversies will minimize the unnecessary troubles greatly. Another possibility of improvement would be following the great examples of other countries with the Westminster governance system. For example, in countries like Australia and New Zealand have already a well-established party discipline rules that are less strict than the ones in Canada and way more effective than the ones we have. In an article, it was said that” Australian parties are considerably more discipline than those in the UK an even those in Canada, although the degree of discipline in the latter has been the subject of much critical comment. Parliamentary votes in the UK are subject to varying degrees of party discipline, with the most rigid being the so-called” three-line whip’ votes. Neither Australia nor Canada has such gradations. In New Zealand party discipline has increased under its mixed Member proportional (MMP) electoral system and, unless party leaders have agreed to a conscience vote, standing orders require a party vote to be taken rather than individuals casting their votes in the chamber. “(Sawer, Abjorensen and Larkin
Tony Blair's Approach to Power Since Labour came into power in 1997 Tony Blair has been criticised by some for being the 'son of Thatcher'. Many say that labour is now following the values and policies similar to that of a Tory government and in particular a Tory government lead by Margaret Thatcher. Before the time of Tony Blair and New Labour, the left wing party stood firm on one value and that was socialism. More on Labours old Values and policies The conservatives on the other hand have very different policies or not so different as some may argue. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher lead the conservative government from 1979-1990 and she made some very radical changes that have stuck.
The Constitution lays out power sharing amongst the President and Congress. However the Constitution is not always clearly defined which leaves questions to how the laws should be interpreted and decisions implemented. There are three major models of presidenti...
I will be attempting to evaluate and analyse the term of Thatcherism'. I will raise issues and introduce her consensus and strategies as a PM. To what extent or degree has the Thatcher government dominated British politics.
Power is a difficult concept to identify; it has been defined in several ways by many scholars. Hinings et al. (1967) state that power is analogous to bureaucracy, while Bierstedt (1950) and Blau (1964) state that it is purely coercion (Stojkovic et al, 2008). Moreover, Hall and Tolbert (2005) identify that there are five types of power, reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert (Stojkovic et al, 2008). According to studies these five types of power are important and needed in a criminal justice agency for greater effectiveness and efficiency.
While relationship between the legislative, executive and judiciary largely remained the same, the public perception of President’s place in system has changed (Jeffrey Tulis, 1990). In the twentieth century, a strong executive emerged and was institutionalized in American national politics. Even though the framers anticipated that Congress would be the predominant branch of government, contemporary presidents wield formidable formal and informal resources of governance. As a result, the public expectations of presidents have grown and created a gap between expectations and formal powers. In an attempt to explain presidential power and its limits, four major often conflicting theories of presidential power has emerged in the last four decades.
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...
The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group.... ... middle of paper ... ... Carl F. Stychin and Linda Mulcahy, Legal Methods and Systems, (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
...ovision of value. Keeping within the Canadian perspective Kernaghan, Marson, and Boris (2000) stress that the concepts embrace three approaches to public sector governance. They are the importance of reducing the role of the state in society; importance of restructuring and reforming the nature and working of government organizations; and the importance of improving management capabilities and practices within the public sector through participatory decision making and employee empowerment. Even though this is a good way to reform government, the choice depends on the degree of support within government for substantial change to its way of organizing and delivering public service. Most Canadian governments have been more moderate and centrist in their application of NPM approaches, stressing managerial reforms over the wholesale reinvention of government systems.
be necessary to take a brief look at the history of the office of the
Power is defined in the course study notes as the “ability of individuals or groups to get what they want despite the opposition”. Power is derived from a variety of sources including knowledge, experience and environmental uncertainties (Denhardt et al, 2001). It is also important to recognize that power is specific to each situation. Individuals or groups that may be entirely powerful in one situation may find themselves with little or no power in another. The county Registrar of Voters, who is my boss, is a perfect example. In running the local elections office, she can exercise the ultimate power. However, in a situation where she attempted to get the county selected for a desirable, statewide pilot project, she was powerless, completely at the mercy of the Secretary of State. Power is difficult to measure and even to recognize, yet it plays a major role in explaining authority. In organizations, power is most likely exercised in situations where “the stakes are high, resources are limited, and goals and processes are unclear” (Denhardt et al, 2001). The absence of power in organizations forces us to rely on soley hierarchical authority.
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?